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

The importance of measuring the uncertainty of second-generation total testosterone analysis

Pages
34–39
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)

The TT measurement uncertainty of other methods should also be known at the international level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Testosterone is present in both genders; however, the level is low in women, whereas it is high in men.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The identification of measurement, factors that can affect the measured value, laboratory reproducibility bias (uRw2), laboratory and method bias measurement uncertainty (Ubias), uncertainty of calibration (uCref ), uncertainty of external quality control data (uEQA), combined measurement uncertainty (Uc), and extended measurement uncertainty (U) were evaluated and reported.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The TT measurement uncertainty of other methods should also be known at the international level.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: Testosterone is present in both genders; however, the level is low in women, whereas it is high in men. A measurement of total testosterone (TT) is widely requested by clinicians in daily practice, and is used in both diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to calculate the measurement uncertainty of TT and to make a contribution of new research to the literature. Methods: The identification of measurement, factors that can affect the measured value, laboratory reproducibility bias (uRw2), laboratory and method bias measurement uncertainty (Ubias), uncertainty of calibration (uCref ), uncertainty of external quality control data (uEQA), combined measurement uncertainty (Uc), and extended measurement uncertainty (U) were evaluated and reported. Results: The results of determining the measurement uncertainty of TT measurement in this laboratory were as follows: 1) uRw2 = (RSDlevel 12 + RSDlevel 22 + RSDlevel 32) / n: (20.902 + 17.482 + 7.002) / 3 = 263.79; 2) uCref = 0.012; Cref = 2.35; k=2. RuCref = (100 x uCref ) / (k x Cref ): (100 x 0.012) / (2 x 2.35) = 0.255; RuCref2 = 0.065; 3) Ubias2 = RuCref2 + uEQA2: 0.065 + 105.60 = 105.67; 4) Uc=√ (uRw2 + ubias2): √ (263.79 + 105.67) = 19.22; 5) U = 2√ (uRw2 + ubias2): 2 x 19.22 = 38.44%; 6) Result report (serum TT): ± 38.44%. Conclusion: The measurement uncertainty result for TT calculated using the top-down method was ± 38.44% with a 95% confidence interval. The individual measurement uncertainty result for each test should be given to the clinician and the patient together with the test results. The TT measurement uncertainty of other methods should also be known at the international level.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYYILDIZ, S. N. (2018). The importance of measuring the uncertainty of second-generation total testosterone analysis. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 34–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/162400

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Chen H, Hardy MP, Huhtaniemi I, Zirkin BR. Age-related decreased Leydig cell testosterone pruduction in the Brown Norwey rat. J Androl 1994
  2. 2nd Generation Testosterone, Arcitect System, Ref 2P13, ABBL311/R07, B2P130, www.abbottdiagnostics.com, 2013. 3. Vesper HW, Botelho JC. Standardization of testosterone measurements in humans. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2010
  3. Brambilla DJ, O'Donnell AB, Matsumoto AM, McKinlay JB. Intraindividual variation in levels of serum testosterone and other reproductive and adrenal hormones in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2007
  4. Scinicariello F, Buser MC. Serum Testosterone Concentrations and Urinary Bisphenol A, Benzophenone-3, Triclosan, and Paraben Levels in Male and Female Children and Adolescents: NHANES 2011-2012. Environ Health Perspect. 2016
  5. Ayyıldız SN. Ölçüm belirsizliği: Dihidroepiandrosteron sülfat analizinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Klinik Biyokimya Derg 2016
  6. Bal C, Serdar MA, Güngör OT, Çelik HT, Abuşoğlu S, Uğuz N, et al. Biyokimya parametrelerinin ölçüm belirsizliğinin hesaplanması. Turk J Biochem 2014
  7. Aytekin M, Cevlik T, Emerk K. Describing an ideal model for calculating the uncertainty of measurements in a clinical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2009
  8. Lee JH, Choi JH, Youn JS, Cha YJ, Song W, Park AJ. Comparison between bottom-up and top-down approaches in the estimation of measurement uncertainty. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015
  9. White GH, Farrance I, AACB Uncertainty of Measurement Working Group. Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: a laboratory implementation guide. Clin Biochem Rev 2004
  10. S1-24. 11. Çelebiler A, Serin H, Güleç D, Karaca B. Klinik biyokimya laboratuvarında ölçüm belirsizliği: pratik uygulama. Turk J Biochem 2011
  11. Adrenal ve Gonadal Hastalıklar Kılavuzu, Türkiye Endokrinoloji ve Metabolizma Derneği, 7. Baskı, Ankara, 2014. 13. Kathryn Korkidakis A, Reid RL. Testosterone in Women: Measurement and Therapeutic Use. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017
  12. Diver MJ. Laboratory measurement of testosterone. Front Horm Res 2009
  13. Westgard JO. Useful measures and models for analytical quality management in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016
  14. Panteghini M, Sandberg S. Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: the match continues. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016
  15. Oosterhuis WP, Theodorsson E. Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: