Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Sweat chloride and conductivity 1
  1. VICKY A LEGRYS, Professor, Division of Clinical Laboratory Science
  1. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at
  2. Chapel Hill, Carolina, USA
  3. vlegrys{at}
  1. East Anglian Biochemical Genetic and Neonatal
  2. Screening Unit
  3. Peterborough District Hospital NHS Trust
  4. Peterborough PE3 6DA, UK
  5. heeley1CB{at}
  6. Department of Paediatrics
  7. Peterborough District Hospital NHS Trust
  8. East Anglian Biochemical Genetic and Neonatal
  9. Screening Unit
  10. Peterborough District Hospital NHS Trust

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Editor,—As a principal author of the sweat testing document published by National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and consultant to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) (USA), I write to address an inaccuracy in the article by Heeleyet al.1 The authors misrepresent the NCCLS document on the role of conductivity analysis. Nowhere does the NCCLS document refer to the current conductivity methods described in the paper as unreliable; it does restate the widely accepted fact that some older conductivity methods are subject to evaporation error. The NCCLS document goes on to state that the CFF has approved the use of newer conductivity analysers for the screening of cystic fibrosis (CF) at community hospitals, using a decision level of 50 mmol/l.2 This decision level is supported by the data presented in the Heeley article. The data presented in the article concerning equivocal patients also support the US reference interval for sweat chloride as normal below 40 mmol/l.3 ,4Patients with chloride values greater than 40 mmol/l should be further evaluated.

The reluctance of many to accept the use of sweat conductivity in place of sweat chloride for confirming a diagnosis of CF is based on the fact that chloride determinations directly reflect the genetic mutation of the disease. Conductivity is a property of all the charged species in a sample—for example, sodium, potassium, chloride, lactate, bicarbonate, etc. As the authors point out, chloride provides greater discrimination than sweat sodium—that is, less overlap between diagnostic categories. It would seem logical then, that combining sodium with chloride in a conductivity measurement would effectively cancel out the discrimination advantage of chloride alone. Referring to the data presented in table 2, there were twice as many patients with equivocal conductivity concentrations as with chloride (albeit a very limited sample size). Additionally, there exists a paucity of data in the scientific literature comparing conductivity and chloride values in CF and non-CF individuals. Even the scientists publishing such research support the conclusion that conductivity is appropriate for initial screening and chloride for confirmatory diagnosis.5

Heeley et al's article attempts to provide relevant data, however it is most unfortunate that the authors failed to include in their analysis a linear regression plot of chloride versus conductivity along with a bias plot of the data so that the reader could assess the correlation. More studies need to be published comparing conductivity with chloride, particularly in patients with results in the equivocal range, before the conclusion can be made that sweat conductivity is as effective as chloride measurement for the diagnosis of CF.


Dr Heeley et al respond

Editor,—As the principal author of the NCCLS guideline on sweat testing methodology, Dr LeGrys should be better informed of its content. It includes the clear statement that when sweat test results are obtained by conductivity measurement “the patient should be referred for quantitative sweat electrolyte testing”. In our paper we refer to this statement as implying that sweat conductivity measurement should be regarded as “unreliable for diagnostic purposes”. This surely cannot be conceived as misrepresenting the NCCLS position, as claimed by Dr LeGrys. Although the NCCLS does, by reference, attribute this advice to Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) (USA) policy, by including it in their guideline without comment or qualification, the NCCLS authors are actively promoting it.

The medical politics of the USA do not concern us, but rather the question as to whether there is any scientific evidence underpinning this advice which the NCCLS upholds. The result of our study suggests there is none.

Dr LeGrys quotes research findings which support the conclusion that sweat conductivity measurement is appropriate only for initial screening purposes.1-1 We contend that there is no data presented in this otherwise excellent paper which provide scientific justification for that conclusion.

Dr LeGrys is of the opinion that the conclusion we draw from our own study should have been supported by appropriate linear regression and bias plots of the data. The Archives' professional statistical adviser reviewing our manuscript, which included such data analysis, thought otherwise and requested us to remove it.

It is rather ironic that Dr LeGrys should now be pleading for more studies to be carried out to resolve the issue of the diagnostic equivalence of indirect and direct sweat electrolyte measurement, focusing on patients who produce results which are equivocal. Considering the relative rarity of such patients in general paediatric practice, if the problem revolves around these cases, why did the NCCLS guideline not clearly state this in the first place? In reality, the final diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in these cases is likely to be resolved by the results of investigations other than the sweat test.


  1. 1-1.