目的  为确保血液透析治疗的充分性和可靠性，对比分析3种品牌血液透析机的透析液流量校准情况与稳定性，旨在提出优化的质量控制方法，指导临床完善治疗方案。 方法 依据JJF1353-2012标准，采用HDM99XP血液透析机质量检测仪，对A、B、C 3组(每组8台)透析机的透析液流量进行检测与分析，对每组偏差最大的机器进行为期6个月的稳定性测试。 结果 在500 ml/min校准点，3组透析机的平均透析液流量分别为(497.6±14.4)、(489.4±19.0)、(484.0±23.2)ml/min，3组间比较差异无统计学意义(F=1.021，P=0.377)。稳定性测试显示C组稳定性最差，偏差达33.8 ml/min。 结论 尽管各品牌血液透析机平均透析液流量差异不大，但C组稳定性不佳。建议将稳定性检测纳入质量控制体系，鉴于透析液流量普遍偏低，临床实践中应适当提高设定值，以确保治疗效果，优化医疗服务质量。

Objective  The calibration and stabilization of dialysate flow rate were compared among three brands of hemodialysis machines, in order to optimize the quality control system, to guide the improvement of hemodialysis procedures, and thereby to ensure the adequacy and reliability of hemodialysis.  Method  According to the JJF1353-2012 standard, the HDM99XP blood dialysis machine quality detector was used to examine and analyze the dialysate flow rate in three groups of dialysis machines (groups A, B, and C, 8 units in each group). The machine with the largest deviation in each group was subjected to a stability test for 6 months.  Result  At the 500mL/min calibration point, the average dialysate flow rates of the three groups were 497.6±14.4 mL/min, 489.4±19.0 mL/min, and 484.0±23.2 mL/min respectively, without statistical differences (F=1.021, P=0.377). Stability tests showed that group C was the worst, with a deviation up to 33.8mL/min.  Conclusion  The stability of dialysate flow rate was unsatisfactory in group C machines, despite the fact that the average dialysate flow rate was similar among the three brands of machines. We recommend that stability test should be incorporated into the quality control system, and that the set value should be appropriately increased in clinical practice in the present situation of lower dialysate flow rate to ensure hemodialysis effectiveness and medical service quality.