Reporting measurement uncertaintieswith ethanol results

Key Findings & Data:All of the patient ethanol results were scanned and recorded between October 2015 and March 2016 by using electronic patient records.Results: The measurement uncertainty value was calculated as ±12.25%.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Measurement uncertainty should be limited with legislative regulations by country-specific scientific committees.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2015 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: All measurements are affected by errors whose quantitative expressions are called measurement uncertainty. Blood, urine, breath or serum alcohol concentration is measured to assess if an offence has been committed. In this study, we aimed to calculate the measurement uncertainty for ethanol.Materials and methods: Measurement uncertainty was calculated according to the Nordtest guidelines by tracking six steps. All of the patient ethanol results were scanned and recorded between October 2015 and March 2016 by using electronic patient records.Results: The measurement uncertainty value was calculated as ±12.25%. The results from 1178 patients referred to our hospital for serum ethanol level analyses were scanned. Of the 1178 ethanol results, 597 were driver. Male persons have higher probability of alcohol-impaired driving than female persons [p = 0.007; odds ratio was 2.239 (1.211–4.141 with 95% confidence interval)].Conclusion: The measurement uncertainty for ethanol concentrations measured in our laboratory was lower than the allowable total error (TEa) of the guidelines (20%). Laboratories that analyze ethanol have to be more transparent about measurement procedures when presenting their ethanol result. Measurement uncertainty should be limited with legislative regulations by country-specific scientific committees.

Özet

Amaç: Tüm ölçümler nicel ifadeyle ölçüm belirsizliğiolarak ifade edilen hatalardan etkilenir. Adli olay olasılık larına karşın kan, idrar, nefes ve serumda alkol ölçümleriyapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada etanol için ölçüm belirsizliğihesaplamayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Nordtest rehberi kullanılarak altıadımda ölçüm belirsizliği hesaplandı. Elektronik hastakayıtları üzerinden Ekim 2015-Mart 2016 tarihleri arasın daki hastaların etanol sonuçları tarandı. Bulgular: Ölçüm belirsizliği %12,25 olarak hesaplandı.Etanol analizi yapılmış olan 1.178 hasta sonucu tarandı.Bu hastaların 597’si sürücü idi. Alkollü araç kullanma ola sılığı erkeklerde kadınlardan yüksek bulundu [p = 0,007;odds oranı 2,239 (1,211–4,141 95% güven aralığında)]. Sonuç: Laboratuvarımızda etanol testi için ölçüm belirsiz liği rehberlerde yer alan izin verilen toplam hatadan (%20)düşük bulunmuştur. Laboratuvarların etanol sonuçlarınısunarken ölçüm prosedürleri hakkında daha şeffaf dav ranmaları ve ölçüm belirsizliği değerlerinin ülkelere özelyasal düzenlemeler ile sınırlandırılması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

EREL, Ö., ŞEN, O., ÖZTAŞ, D., BARAN, P., BAL, C., ERDOĞAN, S., AVCIOĞLU, G. (2022). Reporting measurement uncertaintieswith ethanol results. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3, 255–261. https://ajindex.com/articles/620799

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

Penmetsa P, Pulugurtha SS. Risk drivers pose to themselves and other drivers by violating traffic rules. Traffic Inj Prev 2017;18:63–9
Sleet DA, Mercer SL, Cole KH, Shults RA, Elder RW, Nichols JL. Scientific evidence and policy change: lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers to 0.08% in the USA. Glob Health Promot 2011;18:23–6
Heron M. Deaths: Leading Causes for 2013. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016;65:1–95
Khiabani HZ, Christophersen AS, Morland J. [Routines upon suspicion of driving under influence]. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin. ny raekke 2007;127:618–9
Nghiem S, Commandeur JJ, Connelly LB. Determinants of road traffic safety: new evidence from Australia using state-space analysis. Accid Anal Prev 2016;94:65–72
Dallas Jones GR. Measurement uncertainty for clinical laboratories – a revision of the concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1303–7
Tate JR, Plebani M. Measurement uncertainty – a revised understanding of its calculation and use. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1277–9
Farrance I, Badrick T, Sikaris KA. Uncertainty in measurement and total error – are they so incompatible? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1309–11
Ceriotti F. Deriving proper measurement uncertainty from internal quality control data: an impossible mission? Clin Biochem 2018;57:37–40
Cui M, Xu L, Wang H, Ju S, Xu S, Jing R. Combining Nordtest method and bootstrap resampling for measurement uncertainty estimation of hematology analytes in a medical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2017;50:1067–72
Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem 1974;20:825–33
Kummer N, Lambert WE, Samyn N, Stove CP. Alternative sampling strategies for the assessment of alcohol intake of living persons. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1078–91
Zamengo L, Frison G, Tedeschi G, Frasson S. Forensic-metrological considerations on assessment of compliance (or non-compliance) in forensic blood alcohol content determinations: a case study with software application. Forensic Sci Int 2016;265:144–52
Fell JC. The merits of adopting a 0.05 administrative blood alcohol concentration limit for driving. Am J Public Health 2016;106:977–8
Magnusson B, Naykki T, Hovind H, Krysell M. Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in env