Performance characteristics of automated clinical chemistry analyzers using commercial assay reagents contributing to quality assurance and clinical decision in a hospital laboratory

Abstract

Background: Clinical laboratories provide essential diagnostic services that are essential in clinical decision making, contributing to the quality of healthcare. The performance of two Siemens ADVIA 1800 analyzers was characterized in a hospital Biochemistry laboratory in order to evaluate the analytical characteristics of such automated analyzer systems using nonoriginal assay reagents attempting to support laboratory quality service and crucial clinical decision making.

Methods: We independently completed performance validation studies including trueness, precision, sensitivity as well as measurement of uncertainty and sigma metrics calculation for 25 biochemical parameters.

Results: Trueness expressed as bias was less than 20% for both ADVIA 1800 analyzers. Within run and total precisions expressed as CV% were ≤9.85% on both analyzers for most parameters studied with few exceptions (Mg, TB, DB, Cl, HDL and UA) observed either in low or in high level samples and between the two analyzers. LoB, LoD and LoQ values produced by the two analyzers were comparable except Cl. Uncertainty values produced by the two analyzers were comparable with no significant differences. Quality performance of reagent assays was studied using the sigma metrics system. The sigma values were plotted on normalized method decision charts for graphical representation of assay performances for each analyzer.

Conclusions: The two ADVIA systems, independently evaluated, showed consistent performance characteristics with certain discrepancies by several reagents. Sigma analysis was helpful for revealing the quality performance of non-original reagents supporting the need for strict assessment of quality assurance and in some instances optimization/improvement of assay methods.

Keywords:

• Evaluation
• validation studies
• clinical chemistry
• uncertainty
• sigma metrics
• clinical decision

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mrs. Helen Yfanti, for secretarial and laboratory assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.