These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1597926)

  • 1. Economy and quality assessment of home made clinical chemistry reagents.
    Zafar MN; Syed S
    J Pak Med Assoc; 1992 Apr; 42(4):95-7. PubMed ID: 1597926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The use of centrally prepared reagents in an external quality experimental trial.
    Loria A; Pizano F; Perez-Dominguez J
    J Int Fed Clin Chem; 1993 Apr; 5(2):44-8. PubMed ID: 10148539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Diagnostic kits in parasitology: which controls?].
    Rossi P
    Parassitologia; 2004 Jun; 46(1-2):145-9. PubMed ID: 15305705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Experience with cost-effective in-house reagents for the assay of carbamazepine in serum, using the Abbott TDx.
    Colbert DL; Turner GJ
    Ther Drug Monit; 1993 Jun; 15(3):209-12. PubMed ID: 8333000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of package inserts for diagnostic kits.
    Secchiero S; Sciacovelli L; Bonvicini P; Zaninotto M; Plebani M
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 1999 Jun; 37(6):663-5. PubMed ID: 10475075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. KEMRI Hep-cell II hepatitis B surface antigen screening kit.
    Okoth FA; Kaiguri PM; Mathenge E; Tuei J; Muchiri S; Owino N; Kamau G; Kulundu J; Njuguna A; Tukei PM; Yano M; Naruse T
    East Afr Med J; 1999 Sep; 76(9):530-2. PubMed ID: 10685326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Revised recommendation (1983) on evaluation of diagnostic kits. Part 2. Guidelines for the evaluation of clinical chemistry kits.
    Logan JE
    J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1983 Dec; 21(12):899-902. PubMed ID: 6663250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Detecting cocaine and opiates in urine: comparing three commercial assays.
    Schilling RF; Bidassie B; El-Bassel N
    J Psychoactive Drugs; 1999; 31(3):305-13. PubMed ID: 10533978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of the Kodak Ektachem glucose and urea methods.
    Clark PM; Kricka LJ; Whitehead TP
    Ann Clin Biochem; 1980 Nov; 17(6):293-300. PubMed ID: 6782933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Laboratory intercomparison of commerical digoxin kits.
    Hansell JR
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1979 Aug; 72(2 Suppl):341-5. PubMed ID: 474512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of antinuclear autoantibodies of defined specificities. III. Comparative performance characteristics of academic and manufacturers' laboratories.
    Fritzler MJ; Wiik A; Tan EM; Smolen JS; McDougal JS; Chan EK; Gordon TP; Hardin JA; Kalden JR; Lahita RG; Maini RN; Reeves WH; Rothfield NF; Takasaki Y; Wilson M; Byrd MG; Slivka L; Koziol JA
    J Rheumatol; 2003 Nov; 30(11):2374-81. PubMed ID: 14677180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The use and abuse of commercial kits used to detect autoantibodies.
    Fritzler MJ; Wiik A; Fritzler ML; Barr SG
    Arthritis Res Ther; 2003; 5(4):192-201. PubMed ID: 12823850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of urea reagent kits using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reference measurement procedures.
    Qiao R; Zhang Y; Zhang J
    Clin Lab; 2014; 60(10):1669-75. PubMed ID: 25651713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. HIV contamination of commercial PCR enzymes raises the importance of quality control of low-cost in-house genotypic HIV drug resistance tests.
    Monleau M; Plantier JC; Peeters M
    Antivir Ther; 2010; 15(1):121-6. PubMed ID: 20167998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A scheme for the evaluation of methods in clinical chemistry with particular application to those measuring enzyme activities. Part I: general considerations.
    Kim EK; Logan JE
    Clin Biochem; 1978 Dec; 11(6):238-43. PubMed ID: 737848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Measurement of serum cholinesterase activity: comparison of commercial and laboratory test reagents, enzyme standards and statistical processing of the results].
    Simeon V
    Arh Hig Rada Toksikol; 1989 Jun; 40(2):183-9. PubMed ID: 2633723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparative study of five commercial reagents for the Coulter Model S: a proposed method for reagent evaluation.
    Nosanchuk JS; D'Souza JP; Mudholkar GS; Lin CC; Verno M; Buchanan B
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1978 May; 102(5):258-62. PubMed ID: 25639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. External quality control program for inter-laboratory quality control.
    Bewarder N; Müller P
    Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(6D):5213-6. PubMed ID: 11326697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Report on a common survey in clinical laboratories in Belgium and in The Netherlands: immunoassays.
    Libeer JC; Tertoolen JF
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl; 1993; 212():39-42. PubMed ID: 8465152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Are we outdating reagents too soon?
    Morgan JW
    MLO Med Lab Obs; 1985 Jul; 17(7):55-8. PubMed ID: 10276906
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.