Journals / International Journal of Medical Biochemistry / 2018 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of analytical performance specifications of routine clinical biochemistry tests with biological variationbased total allowable error criteria

Pages
91–98
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition to defining the TEa for each specification of BV, the definition of bias and CV boundaries can give a more objective idea of the source of error.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Total allowable error (TEa) is the analytical quality specification that determines the acceptable limits for a test result.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of the present study was to determine whether third-party control data (percentage coefficient of variation (CV), percentage bias, and %TEa) of 26 clinical biochemistry parameters collected over a period of 6 months would meet biological variation (BV)-based analytical quality specifications (minimum, desirable, and optimum) in which BV quality specification might be more appropriate for our laboratory use.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition to defining the TEa for each specification of BV, the definition of bias and CV boundaries can give a more objective idea of the source of error.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: Total allowable error (TEa) is the analytical quality specification that determines the acceptable limits for a test result. The aim of the present study was to determine whether third-party control data (percentage coefficient of variation (CV), percentage bias, and %TEa) of 26 clinical biochemistry parameters collected over a period of 6 months would meet biological variation (BV)-based analytical quality specifications (minimum, desirable, and optimum) in which BV quality specification might be more appropriate for our laboratory use. Methods: The study was conducted for 6 months on tests with the TEa values determined according to BV and using third-party controls, Unity Real Time® software, and Beckman Coulter AU5800 clinical chemistry analyzer. Results: The BV minimum specification is the easiest target to be performed by laboratories since it has the widest limits. It is also known that the BV already fulfills the other specifications (minimum and desirable) in tests where the optimum specification targets can be achieved, and the test performance classifications of our work are made according to this information. The minimum specification is only in Level 2 control serum total cholesterol test. The optimum specification with the narrowest limits within the BV criteria and the most difficult to achieve was met in nine tests (alanine aminotransferase, direct bilirubin, total bilirubin, creatine kinase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, ferritin, lipase, triglyceride, and uric acid (UA) for both control levels. Outside of these tests, in general, the desirable specification that each laboratory is aiming to fulfill is met. Conclusion: It is very valuable to set the boundaries of quality specifications targeted for analytical performance based on BV. These values are determined by the intra-individual and inter-individual variability of the test and, thus, define a test-specific target. In addition to defining the TEa for each specification of BV, the definition of bias and CV boundaries can give a more objective idea of the source of error.

🔖

Cite This Article

CAKMAK, O., ALTUN, Z., AYAN, N. N. (2018). Evaluation of analytical performance specifications of routine clinical biochemistry tests with biological variationbased total allowable error criteria. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 3, 91–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/162394

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ricós C, Perich C, Minchinela J, Álvarez V, Simón M, Biosca C, et al. Application of biological variation – a review. Biochemia Medica 2009;19:250–9
  2. Fraser CG, Harris EK. Generation and application of data on biological variation in clinical chemistry. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 1989;27:409–37
  3. Fraser CG. Biological Variation: From Principles to Practice. Washington: AACC Press; 2001. p. 11–6
  4. Petersen PH, de Verdier CH, Groth T, Fraser CG, Blaabjerg O, Hørder M. The influence of analytical bias on diagnostic misclassifications. Clin Chim Acta 1997:260;189–206
  5. Burtis CA, Bruns DE. Selection and Analytical Evaluation of Methods – With Statistical Techniques. In: Tietz Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics. 7th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 6–31
  6. Perich C, Minchinela J, Ricós C, Fernández-Calle P, Alvarez V, Doménech MV, et al. Biological variation database: structure and criteria used for generation and update. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:299–305
  7. CLSI C24A3: Statistical Quality Control for Quantitative Measurement Procedures: Principles and Definitions; Approved Guideline, C24-A3. 3th ed. Wayne: Clinical and Labaratory Standards Institute; 2006
  8. Westgard J. Basic QC Practices. Training in Statistical Quality Control for Medical Laboratories. 3rd ed. Westgard QC; 2010. p. 175–89
  9. Aslan D, Sert S, Aybek H, Yılmaztürk G. Assessment of Total Clinical Laboratory Process Perfromance: Normalized OPSpecs Charts, Six Sigma and Patient Test Results [Article in Turkish]. - Turk J Biochem 2005;30:296–305
  10. Stroobants AK, Goldschmidt HMJ, Plebani M. Error budget calculations in laboratory medicine: linking the concepts of biological variation and allowable medical errors. Clin Chim Acta 2003;333:169–76
  11. Fuentes-Arderiu X, Acebes-Frieyro G, Gavaso-Navarro L, Castiñeiras-Lacambra MJ. Pre-metrological (pre-analytical) variation of some biochemical Quantities. Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:987–9
  12. Fraser CG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Lieeber JC, Ricos C. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:8–12
  13. Bal C, Serdar MA, Güngör OT, Çelik HT, Abuşoğlu S, Uğuz N, et al. Calculation of measurement uncertainty of biochemical parameters [Article in Turkish]. Turk J Biochem 2014;39:538– 43
  14. Ricós C, Ramón F, Salas A, Buño A, Calafell R, Morancho J, et al; Interdisciplinary Expert Committee for Quality Specifications in Clinical Laboratory. Minimum analytical qu