Criteria of analytical quality measurement in clinical biochemistry. Current international consensus and its implications for routine action of clinical laboratories.
Authors:
B. Friedecký 1,2; J. Kratochvíla 2
Authors‘ workplace:
ÚKBD Fakultní nemocnice Hradec Králové
1; SEKK s. r. o. Pardubice
2
Published in:
Klin. Biochem. Metab., 24, 2016, No. 1, p. 32-38
Overview
Objective:
Review of current opinions on the analytical quality indicators in the clinical laboratoriem.
Method:
In Stockholm Declaration from 1999 are described ways of creating the indicator quality the analytical. These principles are discussed, proposed and recommended for use by the working Group EFLM for specification of requirement on the analytical quality of measurement in clinical laboratories.
Results and discussion:
Relationship between analytical quality parameters and biological variation values. Problems concerned with determination of biological variation values. Total analytical error, bias, measurement of uncertainty-differences, advantages and disadvantages. Necessity in harmonization of tolerance limit values for external quality assessment programs. Relationship between analytical quality and international clinical guidelines is documented.
Conclusions:
Harmonization of indicator quality values in clinical laboratories is necessary for assurance of objective classification in quality of different laboratories and different methods produced by different manufacturers.
Keywords:
quality indicators, EFLM, bias, error, uncertainty, biological variation.
Sources
1. Kallner, A., McQuenn, M., Heuck, C. Ed. The Stockholm consensus conference on quality specifications in laboratory medicine. Scand. J Clin. Lab. Invest, 1999, 59, p. 475-476.
2. Special Issue CCLM: 1st EFLM Strategic Conference/“Defining analytical performance goals – 15 years after Stockholm conference“. 2015.53:6.available 7.1.2016 on: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ccclm.2015.53.issue-6/issue-files/cclm.2015.53.issue-6.xml
3. Horvath, A. R., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Sandberg, S., John, A. S., Monaghan, P. J. at al.: Setting analytical performance specifications based on outcome studies-is it possible? Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53, p. 841-848.
4. Sacks, D. B. Ed.: Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. 2011. NACB Laboratory medicine practice guidelines. Available 7. 1. 2016 on: https://www.aacc.org/~/media/practice-guidelines/diabetes-mellitus/diabetesmellitusentirelmpg.pdf?la=en.
5. Thygessen, K., Alpert, J. S., Jaffe, A. S., Simons, M. L., Chaitman, B. R., White, H. S. et al.: Third universal definition of myocadial infarction. Circulation, 2012, 126, p. 2020-2035.
6. KDIGO 2012. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. J. Int. Soc. Nephrol. 2013.1/3:1-163. Available 7.1.2016 on: http:/www.kidney-international.org.
7. Friedecký, B., Springer, D. Kratochvíla, J., Škrha, J., Zima, T. Doporučení k použití.výběru a kontrole glukometrů. Klin. Biochem. Metab. 2014.22.155-164 Available 7.1.2016 on: http://www.cskb.cz.
8. Vesper, H. W., Wilson, P. W. F., Rifai, N. A message from the laboratory community to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult. Treatment Panel IV. Clin. Chem., 2012, 58, p. 523-527.
9. Petersen, P. H. Performance criteria based on true and false classification and clinical outcomes. Influence of analytical performance on diagnostic outcome using a single clinical component. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 849-856.
10. Friedecký, B., Kratochvíla, J. Bias měření základních analytů krevního séra. Výsledky a interpretace soudobých studií. Klin. Biochem. Metab., 2015, 23, p. 100-104.
11. Schimmel, H., Zegers, I. Performance criteria for refe-rence measurement procedures and reference materials. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 899-904.
12. Ricós, C., Álvarez, V., Perich, C., Fernández-Calle, P., Minchinela, J. et al. Rationale for using data on biological variation. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 863-870.
13. Carobene, A. Reliability of biological variation data available in an on line database: need for improvement. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 871-877.
14. Westgard, J. O. Six Sigma Quality. Design and control. Westgard QC Inc. 2001.
15. Coskun, C., Serteser, M., Kilercik, M., Aksungar, F., Unsal, I. A new approach to calculating the Sigma Metric in clinical laboratories. Accred. Qual. Assur., 2015, 20, p. 147-152.
16. Oosterhuis, W. P., Sandberg, S. Proposal for the modification of the conventional model for establishing performance specification. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 925-937.
17. Braga, F., Infusino, I., Panteghini, M. Performance criteria for combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 905-912.
18. Guideline of the German Medical Assotiation on Qua-lity Assurance in medical laboratory. Examinations-Rili-BAEK. J Lab. Med., 2015, 39, p. 26-69.
19. Haeckel, R., Wosniok, W., Streichert, T.: Optimizing the use of „state-of-the-art“ performance criteria. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 887-891.
20. Orth, M. Are regulation-driven performance criteria still acceptable? German point of view. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 893-899.
21. Petersmann, A., Nauck, H., Fuentés-Arderiu, X., Kallner, A. Auswertung interner Qualitätskontrollen: Vergleich zwischen der Rilibäk und den 1:2-s und 1:3-s Westgard Regeln. J. Lab. Med., 2015, 39(6), p. 403-410.
22. Panteghini, M., Sandberg, S.: Total error vs. measurement uncertainty. The Match continues. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015 DOI 10-1515/cclm-2015-1036.
23. Ricós, C., Baadenhuijsen, H., Libeer, C. J., Petersen, P. H., Stockl, D., Thienpont, L. at al. External quality assessment: currently used criteria for evaluating performance in European countries and criteria for future harmonization. Eur. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem., 1996, 34, p. 159-165.
24. Jones, G. R. D. Analytical performance specifications for EQA schemes-need for harmonization. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2015, 53(6), p. 919-924.
25. Jones, G. R. D., Sikaris, K., Gill, J. Allowable Limits of performance for external quality assurance programs - an approach to application of the Stockholm criteria by the RCPA Quality Assurance Programs. Clin. Biochem. Rev., 2012, 33, p. 133-139.
26. Plebani, M., Chiozza, M. L., Sciacovelli, L. Towards harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2013, 51, p. 187-195.
27. Plebani, M., Astion, M. L., Barth, J. R., Chen, W., de Oliveira Galoro, C. A. et al.: Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2014, 52, 7, p. 951-958.
Labels
Clinical biochemistry Nuclear medicine Nutritive therapistArticle was published in
Clinical Biochemistry and Metabolism
2016 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Antibody structure and its reactivity.
- Criteria of analytical quality measurement in clinical biochemistry. Current international consensus and its implications for routine action of clinical laboratories.
- Influence of IGF1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) signaling pathway to the development of cancer diseases
- IGF1 (insulin-like growth factor 1), basic characteristics, biological effect, age and gender dependence