Claim · model-written summary
The method had a coefficient of variation of 0.50%-0.74%.
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The coefficient of variation and average recovery were 0.50%-0.74% (n = 5) and 99.22% (n = 3) respectively.”
Title
X Qi; S Zhang PubMed 1998
Other claims from this paper (2)
- Method / resource The calibration curve was linear from 0.068 to 0.68 microgram with correlation coefficient 0.9999.
- Method / resource The method had average recovery of 99.22%.