|
rdf:type |
|
|
lifeskim:mentions |
|
|
pubmed:issue |
1
|
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
1999-3-1
|
|
pubmed:abstractText |
The complement system plays an important role in host defense against infection and in most inflammatory processes. The standard 50% hemolytic complement (CH50) assay is the most commonly used method of screening patient sera for functional activity of the classical complement pathway. Our objective in this study was to compare two newer methods (the enzyme immunoassay and the liposome immunoassay) to a commercial CH50 assay for measuring total classical complement activity. We conclude that both newer methods compare well with a CH50 assay and are equally sensitive in screening routine clinical sera.
|
|
pubmed:grant |
|
|
pubmed:commentsCorrections |
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-1591004,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-1607708,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-2412280,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-2503562,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-3010807,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-409281,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-7362858,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-7416647,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-8034475,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-8461918,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/9874678-965492
|
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
|
pubmed:journal |
|
|
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
|
pubmed:chemical |
|
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
|
pubmed:month |
Jan
|
|
pubmed:issn |
1071-412X
|
|
pubmed:author |
|
|
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
|
pubmed:volume |
6
|
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
|
pubmed:pagination |
137-9
|
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-11-18
|
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Complement Hemolytic Activity Assay,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Complement Pathway, Classical,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Complement System Proteins,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Evaluation Studies as Topic,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Fetal Blood,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Immunoassay,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Immunoenzyme Techniques,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Infant, Newborn,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Liposomes,
pubmed-meshheading:9874678-Sensitivity and Specificity
|
|
pubmed:year |
1999
|
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Comparison of three different methods for measuring classical pathway complement activity.
|
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Associated Regional and University Pathologists Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, USA. jaskowtd@arup-lab.com
|
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study,
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
|
