KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Medical Biochemistry / 2022 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Total analytical error assessment of Yerköy State Hospital biochemistry laboratory

Meltem YARDİM
Sayfa
60–66
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

We think that calculating the TAE and CV% values separately is more useful in showing the analytical performance of the test at different levels

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: In 2016, the maximum allowable CV% and allowable total error limits (TEa-TR) for 15 test parameters were specified by the Ministry of Health of Turkey and put into practice.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Our study aimed to assess the analytical performance of 15 test parameters studied in our laboratory in terms of the TEa-TR criteria and demonstrate the effect of the method of CV% use in the TAE formula on the performance of tests when two-level internal quality control (IQC) was employed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:We think that calculating the TAE and CV% values separately is more useful in showing the analytical performance of the test at different levels
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: In 2016, the maximum allowable CV% and allowable total error limits (TEa-TR) for 15 test parameters were specified by the Ministry of Health of Turkey and put into practice. Our study aimed to assess the analytical performance of 15 test parameters studied in our laboratory in terms of the TEa-TR criteria and demonstrate the effect of the method of CV% use in the TAE formula on the performance of tests when two-level internal quality control (IQC) was employed. Methods: Total analytical error (TAE) was calculated using the formula TAE%=(CV%×1.65)+bias%. Two different procedures were followed for TAE calculation. TAE1 and TAE2 were separately calculated for each control level using the CV%values obtained from the data of IQC at two different levels used for each test. In addition, TAE3 values were found for each test parameter in line with the total CV% value (Total CV%=√(CV12 +CV22) obtained using the IQC data from two different levels. Results: When CV% values were separately taken for each control level, the maximum allowable CV% value was exceeded in two tests at IQC Level 2, whereas the TEa-TR limit was exceeded in two tests at IQC Level 1 and in 2 tests at IQC Level 2 during the 6-month period. According to the TEa-TR formula, the allowable CV% was exceeded 19 times in 13 out of 15 tests, and TEa limits were exceeded 15 times in 10 tests during the 6-month period. Conclusion: When the total CV% was calculated from Level 1 and Level 2 according to the TEa-TR formula, both the maximum allowable CV% and allowable TEa% limits were exceeded many times. However, when the CV% and TAE values were calculated separately for different levels of IQC samples, the analytical performance of the tests were found better. We think that calculating the TAE and CV% values separately is more useful in showing the analytical performance of the test at different levels

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YARDİM, M. (2022). Total analytical error assessment of Yerköy State Hospital biochemistry laboratory. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 60–66. https://ajindex.com/articles/541394

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Lippi G, Plebani M, Simundic A. Special issue: Quality in laboratory diagnostics: From theory to practice. Biochem Medica 2010;20:126–30
  2. Sciacovelli L, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, West J, Garcia Del Pino Castro I, Furtado Vieira K, et al. Quality Indicators in laboratory medicine: The status of the progress of IFCC working group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" project. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:348–57
  3. Goswami B, Singh B, Chawla R, Mallika V. Evaluation of errors in a clinical laboratory: A one-year experience. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:63–6
  4. Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory: Types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 2007;53:1338–42
  5. Panteghini M, Sandberg S. Defining analytical performance specifications 15 years after the Stockholm conference. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:829–32
  6. Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: Using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:617–27
  7. ISO 15189:2012. Medical laboratories-requirements for quality and competence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2012
  8. Westgard JO. Useful measures and models for analytical quality management in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:223–33
  9. Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem 1974;20:825–33
  10. Westgard JO. Assuring analytical quality through process planning and quality control. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992;116:765–9 11. Krouwer JS, Tholen DW, Garber CC, Goldschmidt HM, Kroll MH, et al. Method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; Approved Guideline—2nd ed. NCCLS document EP9-A2. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2002
  11. Tholen DW, Kallner A, Kennedy JW, Krouwer JS, Meier K. Evaluation of precision performance of quantitative measurement methods; approved guideline—second edition. Evaluation 2004;24
  12. Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute. C24-A3 Statistical quality control for quantitative measurement procedures: Principles and definitions; Approved Guideline–Third Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2006
  13. 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 of Clin Pathol 2006;125:343–54
  14. Clinical laboratory ımprovement amend