Verifying measurements on Siemens Atellica® instruments using clinically acceptable analytical performance specifications

References

• Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st strategic conference of the European federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:833–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horvath AR, Bossuyt PMM, Sandberg S, et al. Setting analytical performance specifications based on outcome studies – is it possible? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:841–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga F, Panteghini M. Performance specifications for measurement uncertainty of common biochemical measurands according to milan models. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021;59(8):1362–1368. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotgers E, Linko S, Theodorsson E, et al. Clinical decision limits as criteria for setting analytical performance specifications for laboratory tests. Clin Chim Acta. 2023;540:117233. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser C. Reference change values. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50:807–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aarsand AK, Fernandez-Calle P, Webster C, et al. On behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Task and Finish Group for the Biological Variation Database, The EFLM Biological Variation Database, 2022. Available from: https://biologicalvariation.eu/. (accessed 3 November 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Kouri T, Siloaho M, Pohjavaara S, et al. Pre-analytical factors and measurement uncertainty. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2005;65(6):463–475. M, Sdoi: 10.1080/00365510500208332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson B, Ossowicki H, Rienitz O, et al. Routine internal- and external-quality control data in clinical laboratories for estimating measurement and diagnostic uncertainty using GUM principles. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2012;72(3):212–220. doi: 10.3109/00365513.2011.649015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardisation. ISO 15189:2022. Medical laboratories - requirements for quality and competence., 3rd edition. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. User verification of precision and estimation of bias; approved Guideline - Third edition. CLSI document EP15-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser CG. Test result variation and the quality of evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clin Chim Acta. 2004;346(1):19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cccn.2003.12.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Evaluation of precision of quantitative measurement procedures, approved Guideline - Third edition, CLSI document EP05-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Macdonald R. Quality assessment of quantitative analytical results in laboratory medicine by root mean square of measurement deviation. J Lab Med. 2006;30:111–117.
   Google Scholar
• Kallner A, Theodorsson E. Repeatability imprecision from analysis of duplicates of patient samples and control materials. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2020;80(3):210–214. doi: 10.1080/00365513.2019.1710243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsen S, Petersen PH, Skeie S, et al. Within-subject biological variation of glucose and HbA1c in healthy persons and in type 1 diabetes patients. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49:1501–1507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waikar SS, Rebholz CM, Zheng Z, et al. Biological variability of estimated GFR and albuminuria in CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;72(4):538–546. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.04.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen AA, Petersen PH, Green A, et al. Changing from glucose to HbA1c for diabetes diagnosis: predictive values of one test and importance of analytical bias and imprecision. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52:1069–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser CG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Libeer JC, et al. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem. 1997;34 (Pt 1)(1):8–12. doi: 10.1177/000456329703400103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigo-Bonnin R, Muñoz-Provencio D, Canalias F. Reference change values based on uncertainty models. Clin Biochem. 2020;80:31–41. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.03.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weycamp C. HbA1c: a review of analytical and clinical aspects. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33:393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American diabetes association professional practice committee. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes 2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S83–S96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spasovski G, Vanholder R, Allolio B, et al. Clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and treatment of hyponatraemia. Eur J Endocrinol. 2014;170(3):G1–47. doi: 10.1530/EJE-13-1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasqualetti S, Chibireva M, Borrillo F, et al. Improving measurement uncertainty of plasma electrolytes: a complex but not impossible task. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021;59(4):e129–e132. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-1399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, et al. The task force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European atherosclerosis society (EAS), 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(1):111–188. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar