Search

Background: To provide its participants with an external quality assessment system (EQAS) that can be used to check trueness, the Dutch EQAS organizer, Organization for Quality Assessment of Laboratory Diagnostics (SKML), has innovated its general chemistry scheme over the last decade by introducing fresh frozen commutable samples whose values were assigned by Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference laboratories using reference methods where possible. Here we present some important innovations in our feedback reports that allow participants to judge whether their trueness and imprecision meet predefined analytical performance specifications. Methods: Sigma metrics are used to calculate performance indicators named 'sigma values'. Tolerance intervals are based on both Total Error allowable (TEa) according to biological variation data and state of the art (SA) in line with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Milan consensus. Results: The existing SKML feedback reports that express trueness as the agreement between the regression line through the results of the last 12 months and the values obtained from reference laboratories and calculate imprecision from the residuals of the regression line are now enriched with sigma values calculated from the degree to which the combination of trueness and imprecision are within tolerance limits. The information and its conclusion to a simple two-point scoring system are also graphically represented in addition to the existing difference plot. Conclusions: By adding sigma metrics-based performance evaluation in relation to both TEa and SA tolerance intervals to its EQAS schemes, SKML provides its participants with a powerful and actionable check on accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical chemistry laboratory results from different laboratories often show large between-laboratory variation due to factors such as differences in method principles, method applications, calibration procedures or the application of different instrument factor settings within the same calibration procedure. We have examined the possible use of common calibrators to reduce this variation. Three different calibrators were compared: A, freeze-dried preparations of pooled patients' serum samples, spiked to give three concentration levels; B, freeze-dried preparations of pooled patients' serum samples selected on the basis of elevated enzyme activities at three levels; C, a single calibrator consisting of frozen pooled serum samples. These calibrators were sent to 11 participating laboratories together with 14 fresh patients' serum samples. We report the variation of the results of 21 general clinical chemistry analytes obtained in the patients' serum samples before and after recalculation on the basis of the results of the calibrators. For most analytes the use of a multiple point linear regression calibration function is able to reduce the between-laboratory variation considerably from more than 30% (enzymes) to values well within the bias limits set by European quality specifications, when the necessary conditions are met. These conditions include the commutability of the calibrator(s) with fresh patients' material. For the enzymes, calibrator material originating from selectively pooled patients' samples appeared to be necessary, whereas for the substrates selectively pooled serum calibrators spiked with exogenous supplements may be used. For harmonization to be effective in practice, calibrators need to be stable over time and to carry assigned values set by certified reference laboratories, and the quality performance of participating laboratories should be appropriately monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]