Using Bland-Altman plot-based harmonization algorithm to optimize the harmonization for immunoassays.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-15 Print Date: 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1515/cclm-2024-0187
Huiling Fang, Ruifeng Yang, Jiayue Guo, Xinxin Ren, Xin Chang, Lan Kang, Yuqing Zhu
{"title":"Using Bland-Altman plot-based harmonization algorithm to optimize the harmonization for immunoassays.","authors":"Huiling Fang, Ruifeng Yang, Jiayue Guo, Xinxin Ren, Xin Chang, Lan Kang, Yuqing Zhu","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-0187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Harmonization has been recommended by the International Organization for Standard (ISO) to achieve equivalent results across <i>in vitro</i> diagnostic measurement devices (IVD-MDs). We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of Bland-Altman plot-based harmonization algorithm (BA-BHA) created in this study and compare it with weighted Deming regression-based harmonization algorithm (WD-BHA) proposed in ISO 21151:2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty patient sera were used as the harmonization reference material (HRM) to develop IVD-MD-specific harmonization algorithms. Another panel of 40 patient sera was used to validate the effectiveness of harmonization algorithms. We compared regression slopes, intercepts, Bland-Altman plot layouts, percent differences, limits of agreement (LoAs), between-method coefficients of variation (CV) before and after harmonization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After harmonization by WD-BHA, acceptable slopes and intercepts between measured values and HRM targets were observed in weighted Deming regression, but not in Passing-Bablok analysis. Mean differences were -5.5 to 5.0 % and differences at specific levels were -33.9 to 23.9 %. LoAs were -64.6 to 74.6 %. Between-method CV was 22.9 % (±12.9 %). However, after harmonization by BA-BHA, both weighted Deming and Passing-Bablok regressions equations presented harmonized results. Mean differences were -0.3 to 0.2 % and differences at specific levels were -1.1 to 1.6 %. LoAs were -23.3 to 23.2 %. Between-method CV was 8.4 % (±4.0 %). The data points were evenly distributed at both sides of the mean in Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inequivalence of test results between different methods can be improved but unacceptable analytical differences at specific levels may be hidden in terms of an acceptable slope and intercept on WD-BHA. The new protocol BA-BHA may be a viable alternative to optimize the harmonization for immunoassays.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0187","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Harmonization has been recommended by the International Organization for Standard (ISO) to achieve equivalent results across in vitro diagnostic measurement devices (IVD-MDs). We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of Bland-Altman plot-based harmonization algorithm (BA-BHA) created in this study and compare it with weighted Deming regression-based harmonization algorithm (WD-BHA) proposed in ISO 21151:2020.

Methods: Eighty patient sera were used as the harmonization reference material (HRM) to develop IVD-MD-specific harmonization algorithms. Another panel of 40 patient sera was used to validate the effectiveness of harmonization algorithms. We compared regression slopes, intercepts, Bland-Altman plot layouts, percent differences, limits of agreement (LoAs), between-method coefficients of variation (CV) before and after harmonization.

Results: After harmonization by WD-BHA, acceptable slopes and intercepts between measured values and HRM targets were observed in weighted Deming regression, but not in Passing-Bablok analysis. Mean differences were -5.5 to 5.0 % and differences at specific levels were -33.9 to 23.9 %. LoAs were -64.6 to 74.6 %. Between-method CV was 22.9 % (±12.9 %). However, after harmonization by BA-BHA, both weighted Deming and Passing-Bablok regressions equations presented harmonized results. Mean differences were -0.3 to 0.2 % and differences at specific levels were -1.1 to 1.6 %. LoAs were -23.3 to 23.2 %. Between-method CV was 8.4 % (±4.0 %). The data points were evenly distributed at both sides of the mean in Bland-Altman plots.

Conclusions: The inequivalence of test results between different methods can be improved but unacceptable analytical differences at specific levels may be hidden in terms of an acceptable slope and intercept on WD-BHA. The new protocol BA-BHA may be a viable alternative to optimize the harmonization for immunoassays.

使用基于 Bland-Altman 图的协调算法优化免疫测定的协调。
目标:国际标准化组织(ISO)建议通过协调统一来实现体外诊断测量设备(IVD-MDs)的等效结果。我们旨在评估本研究中创建的基于布兰-阿尔特曼图的协调算法(BA-BHA)的有效性,并将其与 ISO 21151:2020 中提出的基于戴明回归的加权协调算法(WD-BHA)进行比较:方法:80 份患者血清作为协调参考材料 (HRM),用于开发 IVD-MD 特定协调算法。另一个由 40 份患者血清组成的小组用于验证协调算法的有效性。我们比较了协调前后的回归斜率、截距、布兰-阿尔特曼图布局、差异百分比、一致性限(LoAs)、方法间变异系数(CV):通过 WD-BHA 协调后,在加权戴明回归中观察到测量值与人力资源管理目标之间的斜率和截距均可接受,但在 Passing-Bablok 分析中则观察不到。平均差异为-5.5%至 5.0%,特定水平的差异为-33.9%至 23.9%。LoAs 为 -64.6 至 74.6 %。方法之间的 CV 为 22.9 % (±12.9 %)。不过,经过 BA-BHA 的协调后,加权戴明回归方程和帕森-巴勃洛克回归方程的结果都很协调。平均差异为-0.3%至 0.2%,特定水平的差异为-1.1%至 1.6%。LoAs 为 -23.3 至 23.2 %。方法之间的 CV 为 8.4 % (±4.0 %)。在布兰德-阿尔特曼图中,数据点均匀分布在均值的两侧:结论:不同方法间检测结果的不等同性可以得到改善,但 WD-BHA 可接受的斜率和截距可能会掩盖特定水平上不可接受的分析差异。新方案 BA-BHA 可能是优化免疫测定协调性的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信