排序方式： 共有2条查询结果，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Mohammad Abdi Mohammad Said Hakhamaneshi Mohammad Reza Alaei Namam-Ali Azadi Rahim Vakili Daniel Zamanfar Mohammad Taghikhani Shohreh Khatami 《Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB》2015,30(3):318-322
Methods for assaying lysosomal diseases in dried blood samples are very useful today due to its several advantages related to the stability of samples, its transportation, handled and analysis, and its potential use for newborn screening compared to traditional methods in leucocytes samples. For this reason, it is important to validate these assays before being used in routine laboratory. Because of different in biological markers based on ethnicity, we aimed this study to validation a DBS-based fluorometric assay for measurement of α-l-Iduronidase activity for diagnosis of MPS I patients in Iran. DBS samples were collected from 15 MPS I patients and 60 healthy age matched subjects. Diagnostic value, biological variance and α-l-Iduronidase activity were determined. DBS α-l-Iduronidase activity was significantly higher in male subjects than in female group. Using a cut-off level of 1.08 µmol/spot 20 h, sensitivity and specificity were 100 and 98 %. The linearity of test was proved and we showed that within-run and between run precision were 5.6 and 14.66 %. Measurement of α-l-Iduronidase activity in DBS samples is an accurate test for diagnosis of MPS I and because of its rapid shipping and simplicity to keeping, DBS-based enzyme activity could be considered as a useful diagnostic tool in this disease. 相似文献
2.
Mohammad Salehi Mohammad Soltani Hadis Tamleh Shohreh Teimournezhad 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):89-95
The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist. 相似文献
1