SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Medical Biochemistry / 2022 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Sigma metric evaluation with different TEa targets in clinical biochemistry

Seniz KORKMAZ
Pages
120–124
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

QGI was calculated for analytes with sigma score

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performances of various clinical biochemistry analytes by the sigma metrics method according to different total allowable error (TEa) targets and to determine the causes of errors that lead to low sigma score by using Quality Goal Index (QGI).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Twelve analytes that were studied on the Roche Cobas c 501 autoanalyzer were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:QGI was calculated for analytes with sigma score
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performances of various clinical biochemistry analytes by the sigma metrics method according to different total allowable error (TEa) targets and to determine the causes of errors that lead to low sigma score by using Quality Goal Index (QGI). Methods: The study was carried out in the Central Laboratory of Bursa Karacabey State Hospital. Twelve analytes that were studied on the Roche Cobas c 501 autoanalyzer were included in the study. Internal (level 1 and 2) and external quality control data for the period March–August 2020 were obtained retrospectively. The TEa targets were obtained from the Clinical Laboratory Improvement of 2019 (CLIA 2019), biological variation database (BVD), Rili-BAEK, and Turkish data. QGI was calculated for analytes with sigma score

🔖

Cite This Article

KORKMAZ, S. (2022). Sigma metric evaluation with different TEa targets in clinical biochemistry. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 120–124. https://ajindex.com/articles/541393

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 17025. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration of laboratories, 2005
  2. Burtis CA, Bruns DE. Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics. In: Klee GG, Westgard JO, editors. Quality Management. 7th ed. USA: Elsevier Inc; 2015. p. 97–102
  3. Burtis CA, Bruns DE. Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics. In: Linnet K, Boyd JC, editors. Selection and analytical evaluation of methods-with statistical techniques. 7th ed. USA: Elsevier Inc; 2015. p. 12
  4. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44(6):750–9
  5. Zhang C, Zhao H, Wang J, Zeng J, Wang Z. The application of six sigma techniques in the evaluation of enzyme measurement procedures in China. Clin Lab 2015;61:461–5
  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. EP21A. Estimation of total analytical error for clinical laboratory methods. Wayne, PA: 2003
  7. Coskun A, Inal T, Unsal I, Serteser M. Six sigma as a quality management tool: evaluation of performance in laboratory medicine quality management and six sigma. InTechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia; 2010. p. 248–61
  8. Nevalainen D, Berte L, Kraft C, Leigh E, Picaso L, Morgan T, et al. Evaluating laboratory performance on quality indicators with the six sigma scale. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124(4):516–9
  9. Harry M, Schroeder R, Six Sigma: The breakthrough strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporation. New York, NY: Random House, Doubleday; 2000
  10. Shaikh MS, Moiz B. Analytical performance evaluation of a high-volume hematology laboratory utilizing sigma metrics as standard of excellence. Int J Lab Hematol 2016;38(2):193–7
  11. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. An assessment of σ metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. J Vet Diagn Invest 2008;20:536–44
  12. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of sigma metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125(3):343–54
  13. Federal Register. clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988 (CLIA) proficiency testing regulations related to analytes and acceptable performance. Federal Register; 2019. p. 1536–67
  14. Westgard JO. WestgardQC, Quality requirements. Available