论文部分内容阅读
本刊创刊号俞筱芬同志在“现行尿铅正常值的商榷”中建议全国统一尿铅测定方法。统一,当然很好。不过,关于尿铅的诊断价值,测定方法不统一只是问题之一,另外还有正常值的计算方法等几个问题值得讨论。例如俞文表中所列各地区尿铅的正常测定值,都以mg/L计算,有时可以导致不正确的诊断。今年夏季高温时期,我们病房中旧铅中毒及铅吸收等患者,每天(24小时)尿量大多在500ml左右,个别人因为上海水质不好而不愿喝水者只三百多毫升;与春秋冬三季相比,尿量相差三、四倍,尿铅以mg/L计要商出二、三倍。这个情况,每年夏季都有发生。很多南方同志同我讨论过,都认为尿铅(及尿汞等)用mg/L计算,至少在夏季是容易造成错误的。
Our first issue of Comrade Yu Xiaofen recommended urinary lead in the current discussion of the normal urinary lead. Unity, of course, very good. However, the diagnostic value of urinary lead, determination of the method is not uniform is only one of the problems, in addition to the calculation of the normal value of a few issues worth discussing. For example, Yu Wen table listed in various regions of the normal urine lead values are calculated in mg / L, and sometimes can lead to incorrect diagnosis. In the hot summer of this year, the urine output of old lead poisoning and lead absorption patients in our ward was mostly about 500ml per day (24 hours). Some people were only over 300ml because of poor water quality in Shanghai. Compared with autumn and winter three quarters, urine output difference of three or four times, urinary lead in mg / L to be out of two or three times. This happens every summer. Many South Comrades have discussed with me that the urinary lead (and urinary mercury, etc.) is calculated in terms of mg / L, at least in the summer is likely to cause errors.