Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238

See all formats and pricing


Select Volume and Issue


30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Performance of a multi-profile critical care testing analyzer

Somlak Vanavanan
  • 1Division of Clinical Chemistry, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
/ Anchalee Chittamma
  • 2Division of Clinical Chemistry, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Published Online: 2007-07-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.003


Background: Modern blood gas analyzers are often coupled to electrolyte and metabolite analyzers. We evaluated a Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress analyzer (STP CCX) for the rapid point-of-care measurement of blood gases (pH, pCO2, pO2, sO2), hematocrit (Hct), total hemoglobin (tHb), sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), chloride (Cl), glucose (Glu), lactate (Lac), urea (BUN), ionized calcium (iCa) and ionized magnesium (iMg).

Methods: The analyzer was evaluated in terms of imprecision and recovery using the STP CCX control. Fresh blood samples were also measured to determine the between-day imprecision. Correlation was assessed by clinical sample comparison with the Nova Stat Profile Ultra C and Dimension RxL systems for Cl and BUN. We used Deming regression, correlation coefficients, mean differences, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for data analysis.

Results: The coefficients of variation for all analytes were within desirable limits, ranging from 0.1% to 4.3%, and the recovery was 100%±3%. Between-day imprecision using fresh blood samples showed good results, ranging from 0.2% to 3.4%. The comparison results showed high to very high correlation. However, statistically significant mean differences with large bias were found for pCO2, pO2 and Cl.

Conclusions: This analyzer is suitable as a simple and fast diagnostic tool in the laboratory and the critical care unit. However, users should be aware of biases that may lead to clinically significant errors in the assessment of acid-base status.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:9–14.

Keywords: blood gas analyzer; critical care; electrolytes; point-of-care testing

Corresponding author: Somlak Vanavanan, Division of Clinical Chemistry, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand Phone: +66-2-2011336, Fax: +66-2-3547266,

Received: 2006-12-30

Accepted: 2007-05-14

Published Online: 2007-07-30

Published in Print: 2008-01-01

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 9–14, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.003, July 2007

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Metin Uyanik, Erdim Sertoglu, Huseyin Kayadibi, Serkan Tapan, Muhittin A. Serdar, Cumhur Bilgi, and Ismail Kurt
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 2015, Volume 75, Number 2, Page 97
Mauria A. O'Brien, Maureen A. McMichael, Kevin Le Boedec, and George Lees
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 2014, Volume 24, Number 3, Page 291
Tetsuya Makiishi, Naomasa Nishimura, Keiko Yoshioka, Shinya Yamamoto, Ryuichi Mitsuhashi, Sayako Maeda, Takashi Konishi, and Kunihiko Hirose
International Journal of Nephrology, 2012, Volume 2012, Page 1
Yeong Uk Jang, Su Nam Kim, Hye Jung Cho, Yong Han Sun, So Yeon Shim, Dong Woo Son, and Pil Whan Park
Journal of the Korean Society of Neonatology, 2011, Volume 18, Number 2, Page 301
Vanessa Stadlbauer, Simon Wallner, Tatjana Stojakovic, and Karlheinz H. Smolle
Journal of Critical Care, 2011, Volume 26, Number 4, Page 433.e1
Steven Kazmierczak
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2008, Volume 46, Number 1, Page 1
Hyunwoong Park, Dae-Hyun Ko, Jin Q Kim, and Sang Hoon Song
The Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2009, Volume 29, Number 5, Page 430
Patrick M. Sluss
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2008, Volume 7, Number 3, Page 88

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.