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

References

• Xia Y, Xue H, Yan C, et al. Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use. Biochem Med. 2018;28(2):020707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lighter DE. How (and why) do quality improvement professionals measure performance? Int J Ped Adol Med. 2015;2:7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Biljak VR, Ozvald I, Radeljak A, et al. Validation of a laboratory and hospital information system in a medical laboratory accredited according to ISO 15189. Biochem Med 2012;22:86–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao S, Qin X. Application of Sigma metrics in assessing the clinical performance of verified versus non-verified reagents for routine biochemical analytes. Biochem Med. 2018;28(2):020709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of sigma metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125(3):343–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem. 1974;20(7):825–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panagiotakis O, Anagnostou-Cacaras E, Jullien G, et al. ESEAP: the national External Quality Assessment Scheme for clinical chemistry in Greece and Cyprus. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(9):1156–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO 15189: 2012. Medical laboratories–requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Standardisation Organisation; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC 17025:2005. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Geneva: International Standardisation Organisation, International Electrotechnical Commission; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Evaluation of Precision of Quantitative Measurement procedures; Approved guideline - Third edition. CLSI Document EP05-A3. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Menditto A, Patriarca M, Magnusson B. Understanding the meaning of accuracy, trueness and precision, Discussion forum. Accred Qual Assur. 2007;12(1):45–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli G, Padoan A, Aita A, et al. Verification of examination procedures in clinical laboratory for imprecision, trueness and diagnostic accuracy according to ISO 15189:2012: A pragmatic approach. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017;55(10):1501–1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Evaluation of detection capability for clinical laboratory measurement procedures; approved guidelines - Second edition. CLSI Document EP17-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Miller WG, Myers GL, Ashwood ER, et al. State of the art in trueness and interlaboratory harmonization for 10 analytes in general clinical chemistry. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(5):838–846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson B, Örnemark U., editors. Eurachem guide: the fitness for purpose of analytical methods – a laboratory guide to method validation and related topics. 2nd ed. Eurschem, 2014. Available from: www.eurachem.org [last accessed September 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Topic E, Nikolac N, Panteghini M, et al. How to assess the quality of your analytical method? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53(11):1707–1718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Iqbal S, Ijaz A, Sharafat S. Estimation of uncertainty measurement—A prerequisite of ISO15189 accreditation for clinical laboratories. J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67:701–705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwick V. Evaluating measurement uncertainty in clinical chemistry. Case Studies. LGC limited, 2012. Available from: https://www.lgcgroup.com/LGCGroup/media/PDFs/Our%20science/NMI%20landing%20page/Publications%20and%20resources/Reports/Clinical_worked_examples_report_Final.pdf. [last accessed September 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM). Evaluation of measurement data - The role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment. JCGM 2012;106. Available from: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_106_2012_E.pdf [last accessed September 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Ellison SLR, Williams A, editors. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG4. Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement. 3rd ed, QUAM, Eurachem, 2012. Available from www.eurachem.org [last accessed September 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Westgard S, Bayat H, Westgard JO. Analytical Sigma metrics: a review of Six Sigma implementation tools for medical laboratories. Biochem Med. 2018;28:020502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrides V, Schneider S. Using Sigma metrics to establish analytical product performance requirements and optimize analytical performance of an in vitro diagnostic assay using a theoretical total PSA assay as an example. Biochem Med. 2018;28(2):020903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar BV, Mohan T. Sigma metrics as a tool for evaluating the performance of internal quality control in a clinical chemistry laboratory. J Lab Physicians. 2018;10(2):194–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, et al. Desirable specifications for total error, imprecision, and bias, derived from intra- and inter- individual biologic variation. Available from: http://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm. [last accessed September 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Armbruster DA, Pry T. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29:S49–S52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Theodorsson E. Quality assurance in clinical chemistry. A touch of statistics and a lot of common sense. J Med Biochem. 2016;35(2):103–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhuis WP, Bayat H, Armbruster D, et al. The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(2):209–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodorsson E. Uncertainty in measurement and total error: tools for coping with diagnostic uncertainty. Clin Lab Med. 2017;37(1):15–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin J, Wang H, Rets A, et al. Stability of BUN and creatinine determinations on the Siemens Advia 1800 analyzer. J Clin Lab Anal. 2013;27(6):435–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitan D, Harper AE, Sun Y, et al. Do serum creatinine levels show clinically significant fluctuations on serial determinations on the Siemens Advia 1800 Analyzer? J Clin Lab Anal. 2017;31(1):e22012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswas SS, Bindra M, Jain V, et al. Evaluation of Imprecision, Bias and Total Error of Clinical Chemistry Analyzers. Ind J Clin Biochem. 2015;30(1):104–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Li N, Zhang W, et al. A comparison between China-made Mindray BS-2000M biochemical analyzer and Roche cobas702 automatic biochemical analyzer. Front Lab Med. 2017;1(2):98–103.
   Google Scholar
• Padoan A, Antonelli G, Aita A, et al. An approach for estimating measurement uncertainty in medical laboratories using data from long-term quality control and external quality assessment schemes. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017;55(11):1696–1701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sylte MS, Wentzel-Larsen T, Bolann BJ. Estimation of the minimal preanalytical uncertainty for 15 clinical chemistry serum analytes. Clin Chem. 2010;56(8):1329–1335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rynning M, Wentzel-Larsen T, Bolann BJ. A model for an uncertainty budget for preanalytical variables in clinical chemistry analyses. Clin Chem. 2007;53(7):1343–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman MK, Friesen LR, Nice A, et al. Multi-center evaluation of analytical performance of the Beckman Coulter AU5822 chemistry analyzer. Clin Biochem. 2015;48(13-14):881–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Zhuang J, Huang X, et al. Performance evaluation of a new high throughput Mindray BS-2000M1 clinical chemistry system. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(12):1078–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulon P, Fischer F, Appert-Flory A, et al. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the Q Hemostasis Analyzer, an automated coagulation analyzer. Thromb Res. 2014;133(5):927–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar