AbstractBackground:There are several complementary English-language guidelines for the performance of the sweat chloride test. These guidelines also incorporate information for the collection of conductivity samples. However, recommendations for the measurement and reporting of sweat conductivity are less clear than for sweat chloride. The aim of the study was to develop an understanding of the testing and reporting practices of sweat conductivity in Australasian laboratories.Methods:A survey specifically directed at conductivity testing was sent to the 12 laboratories registered with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs.Results:Nine (75%) laboratories participated in the survey, seven of whom used Wescor Macroduct® for collecting sweat and the Wescor SWEAT·CHEK™ for conductivity testing, and the remaining two used the Wescor Nanoduct®. There was considerable variation in frequency and staffing for this test. Likewise, criteria about which patients it was inappropriate to test, definitions of adequate collection sweat rate, cutoffs and actions recommended on the basis of the result showed variations between laboratories.Conclusions:Variations in sweat conductivity testing and reporting reflect many of the same issues that were revealed in sweat chloride test audits and have the potential to lead to uncertainty about the result and the proper action in response to the result. We recommend that sweat testing guidelines should include clearer statements about the use of sweat conductivity.
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) – de Gruyter
Published: Mar 28, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera