[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aims& Scopes
Journal News
Articles archive::
Current Issue
All Issues
For Authors::
Call for Papers
Submission Instruction
Submission Form
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Information
Registration Form
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Webmail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 30, Issue 1 (spring 2020) ::
MEDICAL SCIENCES 2020, 30(1): 25-32 Back to browse issues page
Evaluation of biochemical methods performance in clinical laboratories: is this performance suitable for clinical application?
Fereshteh Atabi1 , Reza Mohammadi 2
1- Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Faculty of advanced Sciences and technology, Tehran Medical Sciences Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine , Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , rmohamadi@iautmu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2858 Views)
Background: Clinical application of the test results are profoundly influenced by laboratory errors. Nowadays, the best way to evaluate the performance of a method is to determine its sigma scale according to total allowable error (TEa) and analytical errors, including random and systematic errors. In this study, the performance of the measuring kits for biochemical analytes belonging to Pars Azmoon Company, as the most commonly used kits in Iran, was evaluated by determining their deviation index (DI) and sigma scale.
Materials and methods: During the years 2013-17 and the 15th to 28th runs of the external quality assessment program (EQAP), commercial control materials were sent to about 2000 participating laboratories in each period. Based on the results of measuring the biochemical analytes by these laboratories, method performance of measuring methods was determined according to DI and sigma scale. For determining sigma scale, two different TEa was used.
Results: Based on the TEa introduced by the reference health laboratory of Iran, among the 21 analyzed analytes, DI of the 7, 11, and 3 analytes were acceptable (DI up to 2.0) for 100%, 90% and less than 90% of the reported results, respectively. In sigma scale evaluation of these methods according to TEa of reference health laboratory of Iran and CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments), 13 and 12 measuring methods were acceptable (sigma of at least 2.0), respectively.
Conclusion: Due to the importance of the test results in medical decision making, it is necessary to improve the performance of measuring methods.
Keywords: Method performance, Biochemical analytes, Deviation index (DI), Sigma scale
Full-Text [PDF 521 kb]   (1683 Downloads)    
Semi-pilot: Survey/Cross Sectional/Descriptive | Subject: Cilinical Biochemistry
Received: 2019/05/18 | Accepted: 2019/07/2 | Published: 2020/04/15
References
1. 1. Biswas S, Bindra M, Jain V, Gokhale P. Evaluation of imprecision, bias and total error of clinical chemistry analysers. Ind J Clin Biochem 2015;30:104-8. [DOI:10.1007/s12291-014-0448-y]
2. Lumsden J. Laboratory test method validation. Rev Med Veterinaire 2000;151:623-30.
3. Theodorsson E, Magnusson B, Leito I. Bias in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis 2014;6:2855-75. [DOI:10.4155/bio.14.249]
4. McGuinness C, Seccombe DW, Frohlich JJ, Ehnholm C, Sundvall J, Steiner G, et al. Laboratory standardization of a large international clinical trial: the DAIS experience. Clin Biochem 2000;33:15-24. [DOI:10.1016/S0009-9120(99)00081-8]
5. Theodorsson E. Quality assurance in clinical chemistry: a touch of statistics and a lot of common sense. J Med Biochem 2016;35:103-12. [DOI:10.1515/jomb-2016-0012]
6. McPherson RA, Pincus MR, Editors. Henry's clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods E-book. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
7. Hens K, Berth M, Armbruster D, Westgard S. Sigma metrics used to assess analytical quality of clinical chemistry assays: importance of the allowable total error (TEa) target. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:973-80. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2013-1090]
8. Westgard J. CLIA Requirements for Analytical Quality. Avialable from: https://www.westgard.com/clia.htm. [Accessed at: 2019]
9. Jegede FE, Mbah HA, Aminu M, Yakubu TN, Torpey K. Evaluation of laboratory performance with quality indicators in infectious disease hospital, Kano, Nigeria. Open J Clin Diag 2015;5:1. [DOI:10.4236/ojcd.2015.51001]
10. Guo X, Zhang T, Gao X, Li PTY, Wu Q, Wu J, et al. Sigma metrics for assessing the analytical quality of clinical chemistry assays: a comparison of two approaches. Biochem Med 2018;28:204-14. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2018.020708]
11. Chaudhary NG, Patani SS, Sharma H, Maheshwari A, Jadhav PM, Maniar MA. Application of six sigma for the quality assurance in clinical biochemistry laboratory-a retrospective study. Int J Res Med 2013;2:17-20.
12. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. Assessing quality on the Sigma scale from proficiency testing and external quality assessment surveys. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1531-5. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2014-1241]
13. Huysal K, Budak YU. Application of sigma metrics for the assessment of quality assurance using the MQ-2000 PT HbA1c analyzer. Biochem Med 2015;25:416-20. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2015.042]
14. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. An assessment of σ metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:343-54. [DOI:10.1309/V50H4FRVVWX12C79]
15. Mohammadi R, Norozi V. HbA1c External Quality Assessment: Commutable vs Noncommutable Samples. Biomed Pharmacol J 2016;9:163-8. [DOI:10.13005/bpj/923]
16. Miller WG. Specimen materials, target values and commutability for external quality assessment (proficiency testing) schemes. Clin Chim Acta 2003;327:25-37. [DOI:10.1016/S0009-8981(02)00370-4]
17. Sudhakar B, Reddy AS, Fallerio J. Comparison of three methods for measurement of blood HbA1c as to reliability. Int J Bioassays 2014;3:3000-4.
18. Mao X, Shao J, Zhang B, Wang Y. Evaluating analytical quality in clinical biochemistry laboratory using Six Sigma. Biochem Med 2018;28:253-56. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2018.020904]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Atabi F, Mohammadi R. Evaluation of biochemical methods performance in clinical laboratories: is this performance suitable for clinical application?. MEDICAL SCIENCES 2020; 30 (1) :25-32
URL: http://tmuj.iautmu.ac.ir/article-1-1738-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 30, Issue 1 (spring 2020) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه علوم پزشکی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد پزشکی تهران Medical Science Journal of Islamic Azad Univesity - Tehran Medical Branch
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 35 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652