Search

Objectives: According to ISO 15189:2022, analytical performance specifications (APS) should relate to intended clinical use and impact on patient care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web application for laboratory professionals to calculate APS based on a simulation of the impact of measurement uncertainty (MU) on the outcome using the chosen decision limits, agreement thresholds, and data of the population of interest., Methods: We developed the "APS Calculator" allowing users to upload and select data of concern, specify decision limits and agreement thresholds, and conduct simulations to determine APS for MU. The simulation involved categorizing original measurand concentrations, generating measured (simulated) results by introducing different degrees of MU, and recategorizing measured concentrations based on clinical decision limits and acceptable clinical misclassification rates. The agreements between original and simulated result categories were assessed, and values that met or exceeded user-specified agreement thresholds that set goals for the between-category agreement were considered acceptable. The application generates contour plots of agreement rates and corresponding MU values. We tested the application using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, with decision limits from relevant guidelines., Results: We determined APS for MU of six measurands (blood total hemoglobin, plasma fasting glucose, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total folate) to demonstrate the potential of the application to generate APS., Conclusions: The developed data-driven web application offers a flexible tool for laboratory professionals to calculate APS for MU using their chosen decision limits and agreement thresholds, and the data of the population of interest., (© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

The Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) currently lists the secondary commutable certified reference material (CRM) ERM DA-474/IFCC (DA-474) "C-Reactive Protein in Human Serum" and two generic immunoassay-based method principles as the basis for implementing the metrological traceability of C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements by end-user measurement procedures used by medical laboratories. The current metrological traceability has produced well harmonized results for clinical samples among different end-user measurement procedures. New higher-order pure substance and secondary commutable CRMs have been nominated for listing by the JCTLM. However, the data supporting performance of these new candidate CRMs, including use of new mass spectrometry based candidate reference measurement procedures (RMPs), was not clear regarding the influence that introducing these new CRMs would have on the current well harmonized results achieved with the existing metrological traceability to DA-474. The clinically relevant CRP measurand in blood serum or plasma is a pentamer of identical subunits, which adds complexity to the application of higher-order CRMs and RMPs. The JCTLM convened a workshop in December 2022 to review the appropriate implementation of metrological traceability of CRP measurements. The workshop consensus was that the extent-of-equivalence data must include considerations about the impact of a new CRM when used for its intended purpose in the calibration hierarchies of existing end-user measuring systems; and that a new RMP must compare results with another existing well validated candidate RMP or with a globally available end-user measurement system., (© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

IVD manufacturers have total responsibility in terms of the traceability of marketed in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MD). This includes the provision of a quality control (QC) material as a part of the measuring system, suitable for traceability verification and alignment surveillance by end-users in daily practice. This material [to be used for the internal QC (IQC) component I as described in this paper] should have unbiased target values and an acceptability range corresponding to analytical performance specifications (APS) for suitable (expanded) measurement uncertainty (MU) on clinical samples. On the other hand, medical laboratories (by the IQC component II as described in this paper) should improve the IQC process and its judging criteria to establish a direct link between their performance, estimated as MU of provided results, and APS defined according to recommended models to apply corrective actions if the performance is worsening with the risk to jeopardize the clinical validity of test results. The participation to external quality assessment (EQA) programs that meet specific metrological criteria is also central to the evaluation of performance of IVD-MDs and of medical laboratories in terms of harmonization and clinical suitability of their measurements. In addition to the use of commutable materials, in this type of EQA it is necessary to assign values to them with selected reference procedures and to define and apply maximum allowable APS to substantiate the suitability of laboratory measurements in the clinical setting., (© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Laboratories should estimate and validate [using analytical performance specifications (APS)] the measurement uncertainty (MU) of performed tests. It is therefore essential to appropriately define APS for MU, but also to provide a perspective on suitability of the practical application of these APS. In this study, 23 commonly ordered measurands were allocated to the models defined during the 2014 EFLM Strategic Conference to derive APS for MU. Then, we checked if the performance of commercial measuring systems used in our laboratory may achieve them. Most measurands (serum alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine kinase, γ-glutamyltransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, pancreatic amylase, total proteins, immunoglobulin G, A, M, magnesium, urate, and prostate-specific antigen, plasma homocysteine, and blood red and white cells) were allocated to the biological variation (BV) model and desirable APS were defined accordingly (2.65%, 4.75%, 7.25%, 4.45%, 2.60%, 3.15%, 1.30%, 2.20%, 2.50%, 2.95%, 1.44%, 4.16%, 3.40%, 3.52%, 1.55%, and 5.65%, respectively). Desirable APS for serum total cholesterol (3.00%) and urine albumin (9.00%) were derived using outcome-based model. Lacking outcome-based information, serum albumin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood platelets were temporarily reallocated to BV model, the corresponding desirable APS being 1.25%, 2.84%, 9.90%, and 4.85%, respectively. A mix between the two previous models was employed for serum digoxin, with a 6.00% desirable APS. In daily practice by using our laboratory systems, 16 tests fulfilled desirable and five minimum APS, while two (serum albumin and plasma homocysteine) exceeded goals, needing improvements., (© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

In medical laboratories, the appropriateness challenge directly revolves around the laboratory test and its proper selection, data analysis, and result reporting. However, laboratories have also a role in the appropriate management of those phases of total testing process (TTP) that traditionally are not under their direct control. So that, the laboratory obligation to act along the entire TTP is now widely accepted in order to achieve better care management. Because of the large number of variables involved in the overall TTP structure, it is difficult to monitor appropriateness in real time. However, it is possible to retrospectively reconstruct the body of the clinical process involved in the management of a specific laboratory test to track key passages that may be defective or incomplete in terms of appropriateness. Here we proposed an appropriateness check-list scheme along the TTP chain to be potentially applied to any laboratory test. This scheme consists of a series of questions that healthcare professionals should answer to achieve laboratory test appropriateness. In the system, even a single lacking answer may compromise the integrity of all appropriateness evaluation process as the inability to answer may involve a significant deviation from the optimal trajectory, which compromise the test appropriateness and the quality of subsequent steps. Using two examples of the check-list application, we showed that the proposed instrument may offer an objective help to avoid inappropriate use of laboratory tests in an integrated way involving both laboratory professionals and user clinicians., (© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Clinicians trust medical laboratories to provide reliable results on which they rely for clinical decisions. Laboratories fulfil their responsibility for accurate and consistent results by utilizing an arsenal of approaches, ranging from validation and verification experiments to daily quality control procedures. All these procedures verify, on different moments, that the results of a certain examination procedure have analytical performance characteristics (APC) that meet analytical performance specifications (APS) set for a particular intended use. The APC can in part be determined by estimating the measurement uncertainty component under conditions of within-laboratory precision ( u ), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence Rw ), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence u to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots.Rw is the momentary significant bias caused by shifts in reagent and/or calibrator lots, which, when accepted or unnoticed, become a factor of the APC. In this paper, we postulate a model for allocating a part of allowable u Rw to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots., (© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: The JCTLM created a Task Force on Reference Measurement System Implementation (TF-RMSI) to provide guidance on metrological traceability implementation for the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) community., Content: TF-RMSI investigated the reference measurement systems (RMS) for 13 common measurands by applying the following procedural steps: (a) extracting data from the JCTLM database of available certified reference materials (CRMs) and reference measurement procedures (RMPs); (b) describing the RMS to which each recruited CRM or RMP belongs; (c) identifying the intended use of the CRMs, and, if used as a common calibrator for IVD measuring systems and/or trueness assessment of field methods was included, checking the CRM's certificate for information about commutability with clinical samples; and (d) checking if the CRM or RMP measurement uncertainty (MU) has the potential to be small enough to avoid significantly affecting the analytical performance specifications (APS) for MU of clinical sample results when the MU from the IVD calibrator and from the end-user measuring system were combined., Summary: We produced a synopsis of JCTLM-listed higher-order CRMs and RMPs for the selected measurands, including their main characteristics for implementing traceability and fulfilling (or not) the APS for suitable MU. Results showed that traceability to higher-order references can be established by IVD manufacturers within the defined APS for most of the 13 selected measurands. However, some measurands do not yet have suitable CRMs for use as common calibrators. For these measurands, splitting clinical samples with a laboratory performing the RMP may provide a practical alternative for establishing a calibration hierarchy., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The ISO 15189:2012 standard section 5.9.1 requires laboratories to review results before release, considering quality control, previous results, and clinical information, if any, and to issue documented procedures about it. While laboratory result reporting is generally regarded as part of the post-analytical phase, the result release process requires a general view of the total examination process. Reviewing test results may follow with troubleshooting and test repetition, including reanalyzing an individual sample or resampling. A systematic understanding of the result release may help laboratory professionals carry out appropriate test repetition and ensure the plausibility of laboratory results. In this paper, we addressed the crucial steps in the result release process, including evaluation of sample quality, critical result notification, result reporting, and recommendations for the management of the result release, considering quality control alerts, instrument flags, warning messages, and interference indexes. Error detection tools and plausibility checks mentioned in the present paper can support the daily practice of results release., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background The Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) has recently created the Task Force on Reference Measurement System Implementation (TF-RMSI) for providing guidance on traceability implementation to in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers. Using serum creatinine (sCr) as an example, a preliminary exercise was carried out by checking what type of information is available in the JCTLM database and comparing this against derived analytical performance specifications (APS) for measurement uncertainty (MU) of sCr. Content APS for standard MU of sCr measurements were established as a fraction (≤0.75, minimum quality; ≤0.50, desirable quality; and ≤0.25, optimum quality) of the intra-individual biological variation of the measurand (4.4%). By allowing no more than one third of the total MU budget for patient samples to be derived from higher-order references, two out of the four JCTLM reference materials (RMs) at least allow minimum APS to be achieved for the MU of patient samples. Commutability was explicitly assessed for one of the JCTLM-listed matrixed RMs, which was produced in compliance with ISO 15194:2009 standard, whereas the remaining three RMs were assessed against the ISO 15194:2002 version of the standard, which only required the extent of commutability testing to be reported. Regarding the three listed reference methods, the MU associated with isotopic dilution-mass spectrometry coupled to gas chromatography (ID/GC/MS) and isotopic dilution-mass spectrometry coupled to liquid chromatography (ID/LC/MS) would allow APS to be fulfilled, while the isotope dilution surface-enhanced Raman scattering (ID/SERS) method displays higher MU. Summary The most recently listed RM for sCr in the JCTLM database meets the ISO 15194:2009 requirements with MU that would allow APS to be fulfilled and has had commutability demonstrated for use as a common calibrator in implementing traceability of sCr measurements. Splitting clinical samples with a laboratory performing ID/GC/MS or ID/LC/MS provides an alternative but would also require all components of uncertainty of these materials to be assessed. Outlook Using appropriately derived APS to judge whether reference measurement system components are fit for purpose represents a novel approach. The TF-RMSI is planning to review a greater number of measurands to provide more robust information about the state of the art of available reference measurement systems and their impact on the ability of clinical measurements to meet APS.

Background Laboratory professionals should independently verify the correct implementation of metrological traceability of commercial measuring systems and determine if their performance is fit for purpose. We evaluated the trueness, uncertainty of measurements, and transferability of six clinically important enzyme measurements (alanine aminotransferase [ALT], alkaline phosphatase [ALP], aspartate aminotransferase [AST], creatine kinase [CK], γ-glutamyltransferase [γGT], and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) performed on the Abbott Alinity c analytical system. Methods Target values and associated uncertainties were assigned to three pools for each enzyme by using the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference measurement procedures (RMPs) and the pools were then measured on the Alinity system. Bias estimation and regression studies were performed, and the uncertainty associated with Alinity measurements was also estimated, using analytical performance specifications (APS) derived from biological variability of measurands as goals. Finally, to validate the transferability of the obtained results, a comparison study between two Alinity systems located in Milan, Italy, and Bydgoszcz, Poland, was carried out. Results Correct implementation of traceability to the IFCC RMPs and acceptable measurement uncertainty fulfilling desirable (ALP, AST, LDH) or optimal APS (ALT, CK, γGT) was verified for all evaluated enzymes. An optimal alignment between the two Alinity systems located in Milan and Bydgoszcz was also found for all enzyme measurements. Conclusions We confirmed that measurements of ALT, ALP, AST, CK, γGT, and LDH performed on the Alinity c analytical system are correctly standardized to the IFCC reference measurement systems and the system alignment is consistent between different platforms.

The definition and enforcement of reference measurement systems, based on the implementation of metrological traceability of patient results to higher-order (reference) methods and/or materials, together with a clinically acceptable level of measurement uncertainty (MU), are fundamental requirements to produce accurate and equivalent laboratory results. The MU associated with each step of the traceability chain should be governed to obtain a final combined MU on clinical samples fulfilling the requested performance specifications. MU is useful for a number of reasons: (a) for giving objective information about the quality of individual laboratory performance; (b) for serving as a management tool for the medical laboratory and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers, forcing them to investigate and eventually fix the identified problems; (c) for helping those manufacturers that produce superior products and measuring systems to demonstrate the superiority of those products; (d) for identifying analytes that need analytical improvement for their clinical use and ask IVD manufacturers to work for improving the quality of assay performance and (e) for abandoning assays with demonstrated insufficient quality. Accordingly, the MU should not be considered a parameter to be calculated by medical laboratories just to fulfill accreditation standards, but it must become a key quality indicator to describe both the performance of an IVD measuring system and the laboratory itself.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the measurement of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and/or hCGβ in serum for management of testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs). These guidelines, however, disregard relevant biochemical information on hCG variants to be detected for oncological application. We set out to provide a critical review of the clinical evidence together with a characterization of the selectivity of currently marketed hCG immunoassays, identifying assays suitable for management of GCTs., Content: Evidence sources in the available literature were critically appraised. Most instances of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of testicular GCTs have been associated with hCG results. According to the clinical evidence, 36% of patients with seminoma show an exclusive hCGβ increase, and 71% of patients with nonseminomatous GCTs (NSGCTs) show an increase of intact hCG and/or hCG + hCGβ, whereas the hCGβ increase in NSGCTs is variable according to the tumor stage and histology., Summary: hCG + hCGβ assays that display an equimolar recognition of hCG and hCGβ, or at least do not overtly underestimate hCGβ, may be employed for management of testicular GCTs. Assays that underestimate hCGβ are not recommended for oncological application. In addition to the hCG + hCGβ assay in service, an additional assay with broader selectivity for other hCG variants should be considered when false-negative or false-positive results are suspected on the basis of clinical data., (© 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.)

Measurements in clinical laboratories produce results needed in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients. These results are always characterized by some uncertainty. What quality is needed and what measurement errors can be tolerated without jeopardizing patient safety should therefore be defined and specified for each analyte having clinical use. When these specifications are defined, the total examination process will be "fit for purpose" and the laboratory professionals should then set up rules to control the measuring systems to ensure they perform within specifications. The laboratory community has used different models to set performance specifications (PS). Recently, it was felt that there was a need to revisit different models and, at the same time, to emphasize the presuppositions for using the different models. Therefore, in 2014 the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) organized a Strategic Conference in Milan. It was felt that there was a need for more detailed discussions on, for instance, PS for EQAS, which measurands should use which models to set PS and how to set PS for the extra-analytical phases. There was also a need to critically evaluate the quality of data on biological variation studies and further discussing the use of the total error (TE) concept. Consequently, EFLM established five Task Finish Groups (TFGs) to address each of these topics. The TFGs are finishing their activity on 2017 and the content of this paper includes deliverables from these groups.

The improving quality of laboratory testing requires a deep understanding of the many vulnerable steps involved in the total examination process (TEP), along with the identification of a hierarchy of risks and challenges that need to be addressed. From this perspective, the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) is focusing its activity on implementation of an efficient tool for obtaining meaningful information on the risk of errors developing throughout the TEP, and for establishing reliable information about error frequencies and their distribution. More recently, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has created the Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases" (TFG-PSEP) for defining performance specifications for extra-analytical phases. Both the IFCC and EFLM groups are working to provide laboratories with a system to evaluate their performances and recognize the critical aspects where improvement actions are needed. A Consensus Conference was organized in Padova, Italy, in 2016 in order to bring together all the experts and interested parties to achieve a consensus for effective harmonization of quality indicators (QIs). A general agreement was achieved and the main outcomes have been the release of a new version of model of quality indicators (MQI), the approval of a criterion for establishing performance specifications and the definition of the type of information that should be provided within the report to the clinical laboratories participating to the QIs project.

International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) has established reference measurement procedures (RMPs) for the most popular enzymes. Manufacturers should assign values to commercial calibrators traceable to these RMPs to achieve equivalent results in clinical samples, independent of reagent kits, instruments, and laboratory where the measurement is carried out. The situation is, however, far from acceptable. Some manufacturers continue to market assays giving results that are not traceable to internationally accepted RMPs. Meanwhile, end-users often do not abandon assays with demonstrated insufficient quality. Of the enzyme measurements, creatine kinase (CK) is satisfactorily standardized and a substantial improvement in performance of marketed γ-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT) assays has been demonstrated. Conversely, aminotransferase measurements often exceed the desirable analytical performance because of the lack of pyridoxal-5-phosphate addition in the commercial reagents. Measurements of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and α-amylase (AMY) still show major disagreement, suggesting the need for improvement in implementing traceability to higher-order references. This is mainly the result of using assays with different analytical selectivities for these enzymes. The definition by laboratory professionals of the clinically acceptable measurement uncertainty for each enzyme together with the adoption by EQAS of commutable materials and use of an evaluation approach based on trueness represent the way forward for reaching standardization in clinical enzymology.

Although manufacturers are compelled by the European IVD Directive, 98/79/EC, to have traceability of the values assigned to their calibrators if suitable higher order reference materials and/or procedures are available, there is still no equivalence of results for many measurands determined in clinical laboratories. The adoption of assays with metrological traceable results will have a significant impact on laboratory medicine in that results will be equivalent across different laboratories and different analytical platforms. The IFCC WG on Allowable Errors for Traceable Results has been formed to define acceptable limits for metrological traceability chains for specific measurands in order to promote the equivalence of patient results. These limits are being developed based on biological variation for the specific measurands. Preliminary investigations have shown that for some measurands, it is possible for manufacturers to assign values to assay calibrators with a measurement uncertainty that allows the laboratory enough combined uncertainty for their routine measurements. However, for other measurands, e.g., plasma sodium, current assays are too imprecise to fulfil limits based on biological variation. Although an alternative approach based on probability theory is being investigated, the most desirable approach would be for industry to improve measurement methods so that they meet clinical requirements.

As soon as a new reference measurement system is adopted, clinical validation of correctly calibrated commercial methods should take place. Tracing back the calibration of routine assays to a reference system can actually modify the relation of analyte results to existing reference intervals and decision limits and this may invalidate some of the clinical decision-making criteria currently used. To maintain the accumulated clinical experience, the quantitative relationship to the previous calibration system should be established and, if necessary, the clinical decision-making criteria should be adjusted accordingly. The implementation of standardization should take place in a concerted action of laboratorians, manufacturers, external quality assessment scheme organizers and clinicians. Dedicated meetings with manufacturers should be organized to discuss the process of assay recalibration and studies should be performed to obtain convincing evidence that the standardization works, improving result comparability. Another important issue relates to the surveillance of the performance of standardized assays through the organization of appropriate analytical internal and external quality controls. Last but not least, uncertainty of measurement that fits for this purpose must be defined across the entire traceability chain, starting with the available reference materials, extending through the manufacturers and their processes for assignment of calibrator values and ultimately to the final result reported to clinicians by laboratories.

The standardization of measurements is of high priority in Laboratory Medicine, its purpose being to achieve closer comparability of results obtained using routine analytical systems. In order to achieve standardization, an approach is required that provides reliable transfer of the measurement values from the highest hierarchical level to methods which are routinely used in the clinical laboratories. Such a structure is presented by the reference measurement system (RS), based on the concepts of metrological traceability. Key elements of a comprehensive RS are the reference measurement procedure and reference materials. Other essential elements include the definition of the measurand in regards to the intended clinical use and the reference laboratories that may collaborate in a network. At present, there is international cooperation in developing RS for analytes of clinical significance. Thanks to the work of the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM), a list of higher order reference materials and reference methods is now publicly available. JCTLM has also published the list of reference laboratories that are able to deliver a reference measurement service. As soon as a new RS is implemented, clinical validation of the correctly calibrated routine methods (the IVD products sold onto the market) should take place. Other important issues concerning the implementation of a metrologically-correct approach for result standardization are: 1) the clear definition of the clinically allowable error of measurements and 2) the post-market surveillance of the performance of IVD products. These are tasks of our profession through the organization of appropriate External Quality Assessment programs.

The measurement uncertainty budget should combine the uncertainty of higher order references, the uncertainty of commercial system calibration, the system imprecision and individual laboratory performance in terms of variability. Here we recommend that no more than one third of the total uncertainty budget, established by appropriate analytical performance specifications, is consumed by the uncertainty of references and approximately 50% of the total budget consumed by the manufacturer's calibration and value transfer protocol. The remaining 50% should be available for the commercial system imprecision (including the batch to batch variation of the reagents) and individual laboratory performance in order to fulfil the uncertainty goal. For commercial systems to work properly, in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers will need to take more responsibility and ensure the traceability of the combination of platform, reagents, calibrators and control materials for system alignment verification that only as such (as a whole) are certified ('CE marked') by the manufacturer itself in terms of traceability to the selected reference measurement system. Particularly, IVD manufacturers should report the combined (expanded) uncertainty associated with their calibrators when used in conjunction with other components of their analytical system (platform and reagents). This is more than what they are currently providing as traceability and uncertainty information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An issue associated with standardization efforts is the need to develop useful reference intervals (RI). Lack of proper RI may hamper the implementation of standardization in Laboratory Medicine as standardization can modify analyte results and, without adequate RI, this can impair the result interpretation. Once defined, RI obtained with analytical procedures that produce results traceable to the corresponding reference system can be transferred among laboratories, providing that they use commercial assays that produce results traceable to the same reference system and populations have the same characteristics. Multicenter studies are needed for a robust definition of traceable RI, using experimental protocols that include well defined prerequisites. Particularly, employed methods must produce results that are traceable to the reference system for that specific analyte. Thus, the trueness of laboratories producing reference values should be verified and, if necessary, experimental results corrected in accordance with correlation results with the selected reference. If requirements in the adoption of traceable RI are fulfilled, the possibility of providing RI that are applicable to any laboratory, able to produce results traceable to the reference system, is realistic. The definition of traceable RI should hopefully cause the disappearance of different RI employed for the same analyte, providing more effective information to clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that evaluated the long-term imprecision of measurements of 11 common urinary analytes in a laboratory. The researchers used only one control material that was chosen based on analyte concentrations covering their different clinical applications. The study considered the assay imprecision performance of the Cobas 6000 analyzer in measuring urinary chemistry parameters.

The article comments on two papers pertaining to analytical quality management in medical laboratories and research which appeared in the issue. The studies discussed include "Useful Measures and Models for Analytical Quality Management in Medical Laboratories," by J. O. Westgard, and "Total Error vs. Measurement Uncertainty: Revolution or Evolution," by W. P. Oosterhuis and E. Theodorsson.