case_images: PMC5974533_01
case_images: Bland-Altman Plot of manual titration vs. chloridometer.
case_images: fped-06-00133-g0002.jpg
case_images: PMC5974533_01_fped-06-00133-g0002.jpg
case_images: F2
case_images: We visually observed a systematic bias between manual methods and Sherwood  chloridometer in the Bland-Altman plot constructed by mean to difference measurements, where the discrepancy increased as the concentations increased (Figure 2).
case_images: Bland-Altman Plot of manual titration vs. coulometric endpoint method.
case_images: fped-06-00133-g0003.jpg
case_images: PMC5974533_01_fped-06-00133-g0003.jpg
case_images: F3
case_images: Although the same bias was observed in the Bland-Altman plot of manual titration vs. the coulometric endpoint method (CF Delta System ), the discrepancy among the healthy population was less prominent (Figure 3).
case_images: Bland-Altman Plot of chloridometer vs. coulometric endpoint method.
case_images: fped-06-00133-g0004.jpg
case_images: PMC5974533_01_fped-06-00133-g0004.jpg
case_images: F4
case_images: The results of the Sherwood  chloridometer and the coulometric endpoint methods (CF Delta System ) were more in agreement and resulted in a well-matched Bland-Altman plot (Figure 4).
case_images: ROC curve of the three sweat test methods.
case_images: fped-06-00133-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC5974533_01_fped-06-00133-g0005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: Likewise, the coulometric endpoint method (CF Delta System ) resulted in 96.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a cut-off value of 58.5 mmol/L (AUC: 0.997, 95% CI = 0.975-1.000, p < 0.001) (Figure 5).