{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03403330919623461, 'fraction_numerical': 0.049239681390296886, 'mean_word_length': 4.640816326530612, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Desktop analysers: quality of results obtained by medical office personnel.

We carried out a study to evaluate the quality of results obtained by 14 nontechnical medical office personnel using desktop analysers. The instruments evaluated were the Reflotron analyser, the Seralyzer, the Vision analyser and the DT60 analyser. For precision studies low and high concentrations of control materials were used. For correlation studies the results obtained by the office personnel were compared with those obtained by a trained technologist. The coefficient of variation for the office personnel ranged from 3.0% to 8.1% with the Reflotron analyser, from 6.3% to 26.5% with the Seralyzer, from 1.0% to 4.1% with the Vision analyser and from 1.4% to 16.7% with the DT60 analyser. The correlation coefficient ranged from 0.970 to 0.997 with the Reflotron analyser, from 0.779 to 0.997 with the Seralyzer, from 0.975 to 0.998 with the Vision analyser and from 0.963 to 0.995 with the DT60 analyser. The proportion of results obtained by the office personnel that differed by more than 10% from those obtained by the technologist was 7% with the Reflotron analyser, 42% with the Seralyzer, 2% with the Vision analyser and 21% with the DT60 analyser. The instruments whose operation involves the least number of steps gave the most reliable results in the hands of medical office personnel.