Analytical validation of 39 clinical chemistry tests and 17 immunoassays on the Alinity analytical system

References

• Directive 98/79/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Official Journal of the European Communities. 1998;331:1–37.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Medical laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence; ISO 15189:2012.
   Google Scholar
• Theodorsson E. Validation and verification of measurement methods in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(3):305–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo JD, Song DY, Nam Y, et al. Evaluation of analytical performance of alinity i system on 31 measurands. Pract Lab Med. 2020;22:e00185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sikaris KA. Enhancing the clinical value of medical laboratory testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2017;38(3):107–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). User verification of precision and estimation of bias; approved guideline. 3rd ed. Wayne (PA): CLSI EP15-A3; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Momeni-Boroujeni A, Pincus MR. In: Zaman GS, editor. Systematic error detection in laboratory medicine: quality control in laboratory. IntechOpen, London, United Kingdom; 2018 [cited 2021 Oct 9] Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/58071.
   Google Scholar
• Armbruster DA, Overcash DR, Reyes J. Clinical chemistry laboratory automation in the 21st Century - Amat Victoria curam (victory loves careful preparation). Clin Biochem Rev. 2014;35(3):143–153.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westgard S, Petrides V, Schneider S, et al. Assessing precision, bias and sigma-metrics of 53 measurands of the alinity ci system. Clin Biochem. 2017;50(18):1216–1221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Evaluation of linearity of quantitative measurement procedures. 2nd ed. Wayne (PA): CLSI EP06; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Aarsand AK, Fernandez-Calle P, Webster C, et al. The EFLM Biological Variation Database. [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://biologicalvariation.eu/.
   Google Scholar
• Desirable specifications for total error, imprecision, and bias. Derived from intra- and inter-individual biologic variation. Available from: https://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Barassi A, Pallotti F, Melzi d'Eril G. Biological variation of procalcitonin in healthy individuals. Clin Chem. 2004;50(10):1878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsimikas S, Fazio S, Viney NJ, et al. Relationship of lipoprotein(a) molar concentrations and mass according to lipoprotein(a) thresholds and apolipoprotein(a) isoform size. J Clin Lipidol. 2018;12(5):1313–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran MT, Hoang K, Greaves RF. Practical application of biological variation and sigma metrics quality models to evaluate 20 chemistry analytes on the Beckman coulter AU680. Clin Biochem. 2016;49(16-17):1259–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aloisio E, Frusciante E, Pasqualetti S, et al. Traceability validation of six enzyme measurements on the Abbott alinity c analytical system. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;58(8):1250–1256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glibert B, Bourleaux V, Peeters R, et al. Analytical performance verification of the Beckman coulter AU5800 clinical chemistry analyser against recognized quality specifications reveals relevance of method harmonization. Clin Lab. 2016;62:57–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolcic VS, Bilic-Zulle L, Fisic E. Validation of methods performance for routine biochemistry analytes at Cobas 6000 analyzer series module c501. Biochem Med (Zagreb)). 2011;21(2):182–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanc MC, Neveux N, Laromiguière M, et al. Evaluation of a newly available biochemical analyzer: the Olympus AU 600. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000;38(5):465–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenters-Westra E, English E. Evaluating new HbA1c methods for adoption by the IFCC and NGSP reference networks using international quality targets. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017;55:1426–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlini G, Blirup-Jensen S, Johnson AM; IFCC Committee on Plasma Proteins (C-PP), et al. IFCC committee on plasma proteins (C-PP). standardizing plasma protein measurements worldwide: a challenging enterprise. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010;48(11):1567–1575.,
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharnagl H, Stojakovic T, Dieplinger B, et al. Comparison of lipoprotein (a) serum concentrations measured by six commercially available immunoassays. Atherosclerosis. 2019;289:206–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraro S, Panzeri A, Braga F, et al. Serum α-fetoprotein in pediatric oncology: not a children's tale. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(6):783–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraro S, Bussetti M, Rizzardi S, et al. Verification of harmonization of serum total and free Prostate-Specific antigen (PSA) measurements and implications for medical decisions. Clin Chem. 2021;67(3):543–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serdarevic N. The comparison between different immunoassays for serum carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) concentration measurement. Acta Inform Med. 2018;26(4):235–239.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zur B, Holdenrieder S, Albers E, et al. Method comparison for CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125 determination using the new LOCI technique of dimension vista 1500 and immulite 2000 XPI. J Immunoassay Immunochem. 2012;33(4):435–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hotakainen K, Tanner P, Alfthan H, et al. Comparison of three immunoassays for CA 19-9. Clin Chim Acta. 2009;400(1–2):123–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli G, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, et al. The pathway for introducing novel examination procedures in routine practice in accordance with ISO 15189:2012: 17-Hydroxy progesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate and vitamin D as examples. Ann Clin Biochem. 2019;56(5):548–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debeljak Ž, Marković I, Pavela J, et al. Analytical bias of automated immunoassays for six serum steroid hormones assessed by LC-MS/MS. Biochem Med (Zagreb)). 2020;30(3):030701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapić I, Kralik Oguić S, Rogić D. Preliminary evaluation of eight less frequent endocrine assays designed for MAGLUMI 800 chemiluminescence immunoanalyzer. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2021;81(4):332–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 25-OH Vitamin D Reagent Kit, Alinity i. REF:08P4522. Chicago (IL): Abbott Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D. 510(k) Substantial equivalence determination decision summary (k162840). Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K162840.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Loh TP, Sutanto S, Khoo CM. Comparison of three routine insulin immunoassays: implications for assessment of insulin sensitivity and response. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017;55(3):e72–e75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krintus M, Fernandez JA, Chesters C, et al. Analytical performance of 10 high-volume clinical chemistry assays on the alinity c system. Lab Med. 2019;50(1):e1–e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar