Measurement uncertainty in clinical chemistry: ISO 20914 versus nordtest or intermediate precision versus bias

Abstract

Aim

Measuring uncertainty (MU) is crucial to ensure the accuracy and precision of laboratory results. This study compares the ISO 20914 and Nordtest guidelines to analyze the MU values for 20 clinical chemistry analytes over six months.

Methods

The researchers calculated MU components, including within-laboratory reproducibility (Rw), laboratory analytical performance bias (u(bias)), and combined standard uncertainty (u_c), based on internal quality control and external quality assessment data. The final expanded uncertainty (U) values were determined by multiplying the combined uncertainty with a coverage factor (k = 2 for 95% Confidence Interval), following each guideline’s respective procedures. Clinical chemistry analytes were analyzed on Roche Cobas 6000 c501 auto analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and manufacturer’s kits were used analysis.

Results

The results show that 11 out of 20 clinical chemistry analytes met the targeted maximum allowable measurement uncertainty (MAU) values when calculated according to ISO 20914 guideline. Also, 11 out of 20 clinical chemistry analytes’ MU values met the MAU values with the Nordtest guideline’s recommended calculations. However, some tests met the MAU in the ISO 20914 approach but not in the Nordtest guideline, and vice versa.

Conclusions

The study found that intermediate precision (u_Rw) in the ISO 20914 approach and performance bias (u(bias)) in the Nordtest approach significantly impacted MU values. The research highlights the importance of standardization in MU calculation approaches across clinical laboratories. These findings have implications for patient care and clinical decision-making, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate laboratory guidelines for routine use.

Keywords:

• Measurement uncertainty
• bias
• clinical chemistry
• quality management
• analytical phase

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).