Abstract
Background:
The present study was prompted by the ISO 15189 requirements that medical laboratories should estimate measurement uncertainty (MU).
Methods:
The method used to estimate MU included the: a) identification of quantitative tests, b) classification of tests in relation to their clinical purpose, and c) identification of criteria to estimate the different MU components. Imprecision was estimated using long-term internal quality control (IQC) results of the year 2016, while external quality assessment schemes (EQAs) results obtained in the period 2015–2016 were used to estimate bias and bias uncertainty.
Results:
A total of 263 measurement procedures (MPs) were analyzed. On the basis of test purpose, in 51 MPs imprecision only was used to estimate MU; in the remaining MPs, the bias component was not estimable for 22 MPs because EQAs results did not provide reliable statistics. For a total of 28 MPs, two or more MU values were calculated on the basis of analyte concentration levels. Overall, results showed that uncertainty of bias is a minor factor contributing to MU, the bias component being the most relevant contributor to all the studied sample matrices.
Conclusions:
The model chosen for MU estimation allowed us to derive a standardized approach for bias calculation, with respect to the fitness-for-purpose of test results. Measurement uncertainty estimation could readily be implemented in medical laboratories as a useful tool in monitoring the analytical quality of test results since they are calculated using a combination of both the long-term imprecision IQC results and bias, on the basis of EQAs results.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. ISO 15189: Medical laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012.Search in Google Scholar
2. JCGM 200:2012. International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM 3rd edition). Available at: www.bipm.org. Accessed: Nov 2016.Search in Google Scholar
3. Oosterhuis WP, Theodorsson E. Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: revolution or evolution? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:235–9.Search in Google Scholar
4. Jones GRD. Measurement uncertainty for clinical laboratories – a revision of the concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1303–7.Search in Google Scholar
5. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, 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;53:833–5.10.1515/cclm-2015-0067Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. White GH. Basics of estimating measurement uncertainty. Clin Biochem Rev 2008;29:Suppl 1:S53–60.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, with minor corrections (GUM). Available at: www.bipm.org. Accessed: Sept 2016.Search in Google Scholar
8. Westgard JO. Useful measures and models for analytical quality management in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54:223–33.10.1515/cclm-2015-0710Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Farrance I, Badrick T, Sikaris KA. Uncertainty in measurement and total error – are they so incompatible? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1309–11.10.1515/cclm-2016-0314Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Tate JR, Plebani M. Measurement uncertainty – a revised understanding of its calculation and use. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1277–9.10.1515/cclm-2016-0327Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Matar G, Poggi B, Meley R, Bon C, Chardon L, Chikh K, et al. Uncertainty in measurement for 43 biochemistry, immunoassay, and hemostasis routine analytes evaluated by a method using only external quality assessment data. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1725–36.10.1515/cclm-2014-0942Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Nordic Innovation. Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories. NT TR 537 – Edition 3.1, 2012. Available at: www.nordtest.info. Accessed: Sept 2016.Search in Google Scholar
13. Guide to the evaluation of measurement uncertainty for quantitative test results. Technical Committee for Quality Assurance in Testing (TCQA). EUROLAB Technical Report No. 1/2006.Search in Google Scholar
14. Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical measurement. Eurachem/CITAC Guide CG 4, 3rd ed. Available at: www.eurachem.org. Accessed: Nov 2016.Search in Google Scholar
15. ISO 13528:2015 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012.Search in Google Scholar
16. James D, Ames D, Lopez B, Still R, Simpson W, Twomey P. External quality assessment: best practice. J Clin Pathol 2014;67:651–5.10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201621Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. 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;49:1259–66.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.08.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
