Abstract
Background: International organizations require from medical laboratories a quantitative statement of the uncertainty in measurement (UM) to help interpret patient results. The French accreditation body (COFRAC) recommends an approach (SH GTA 14 IQC/EQA method) using both internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA) data. The aim of this work was to validate an alternative way to quantify UM using only EQA results without any need for IQC data. This simple and practical method, which has already been described as the long-term evaluation of the UM (LTUM), is based on linear regression between data obtained by participants in EQA schemes and target values. We used it for 43 routine analytes covering biochemistry, immunoassay, and hemostasis fields.
Methods: Data from 50 laboratories participating in ProBioQual (PBQ) EQA schemes over 25 months were used to obtain estimates of the median and 90th percentile LTUM and to compare them to the usual analytical goals. Then, the two UM estimation methods were compared using data from 20 laboratories participating in both IQC and EQA schemes.
Results: Median LTUMs ranged from 2.9% (sodium) to 16.3% (bicarbonates) for biochemistry analytes, from 12.6% (prothrombin time) to 18.4% (factor V) for hemostasis analytes when using the mean of all participants, and were around 10% for immunoassays when using the peer-group mean. Median LTUMs were, in most cases, slightly lower than those obtained with the SH GTA 14 method, whatever the concentration level.
Conclusions: LTUM is a simple and convenient method that gives UM estimates that are reliable and comparable to those of recommended methods. Therefore, proficiency testing (PT) organizers are allowed to provide participants with an additional UM estimate using only EQA data and which could be updated at the end of each survey.
References
1. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. NIST Technical Note 1994:1297.Search in Google Scholar
2. White GH, Farrance I. Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing a laboratory implementation guide. AACB Clin Biochem Rev 2004;25(Suppl):S124.Search in Google Scholar
3. Fuentes AX. Uncertainty of measurement in clinical microbiology. In: eJIFCC 2004;13. Available from: http://www.ifcc.org/ifccfiles/docs/130401006.pdf. Accessed November 2004.Search in Google Scholar
4. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). ILAC G-2:1994. Available from: http://www.ilac.org. Accessed November 2004.Search in Google Scholar
5. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1993.Search in Google Scholar
6. ISO 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2005.Search in Google Scholar
7. ISO 15189: Medical laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012.Search in Google Scholar
8. Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008.Search in Google Scholar
9. Measurement uncertainty revisited: alternative approaches to uncertainty evaluation. European Federation of National Associations of Measurement, Testing and Analytical Laboratories, EUROLAB. Technical Report No. 1/2007.Search in Google Scholar
10. SH GTA 14: Technical guide for accreditation for the uncertainty measurement assessment in medical biology. Available from: http://www.cofrac.fr. Accessed 2011.Search in Google Scholar
11. Meijer P, de Maat MP, Kluft C, Haverkate F, van Houwelingen HC. Long-term analytical performance of hemostasis field methods as assessed by evaluation of the results of an external quality assessment program for antithrombin. Clin Chem 2002;48:1011–5.10.1093/clinchem/48.7.1011Search in Google Scholar
12. ISO 13528: Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2005.Search in Google Scholar
13. ISO 17043: Conformity assessment – general requirements for proficiency testing. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2010.Search in Google Scholar
14. Fisicaro P, Amarouche S, Lalere B, Labarraque G, Priel M. Approaches to uncertainty evaluation based on proficiency testing schemes in chemical measurements. Accred Qual Assur 2008;13:361–6.10.1007/s00769-008-0402-xSearch in Google Scholar
15. Amarouche, S, Priel M, De Graeve J. Exploiting proficiency testing results, a new alternative to the evaluation of uncertainties: application in medical biology: dosage of glucose in human plasma. Workshop on the Impact of Information Technology in Metrology. BIPM-PTB, Berlin, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
16. SH GTA 06: Technical guide for accreditation: quality assessment in medical biology. Available from: http://www.cofrac.fr. Accessed 2012.Search in Google Scholar
17. Vassault A, Grafmeyer D, de Graeve J, Cohen R, Beaudonnet A, Bienvenu J. Analyses de biologie médicale: spécifications et normes d’acceptabilité à l’usage de la validation de techniques. Ann Biol Clin 1999;57:685–95.Search in Google Scholar
18. Miller WG, Jones GR, Horowitz GL, Weykamp C. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. Clin Chem 2011;57:1670–80.10.1373/clinchem.2011.168641Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. CLSI. Characterization and qualification of commutable reference materials for laboratory medicine; CLSI document EP30-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
