Lack of consensus in inter-laboratory haematology results in selected laboratories in the southern and northern zones of Ghana.

Ghana medical journal Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.4314/gmj.v57i3.8

Ibrahim B Halidu, Amos X Gafa, Samuel D K Blanney, Benjamin T Barimah, David Akan-Enge, Joseph Boachie, Kate A Kontor, Patrick Adu

{"title":"Lack of consensus in inter-laboratory haematology results in selected laboratories in the southern and northern zones of Ghana.","authors":"Ibrahim B Halidu, Amos X Gafa, Samuel D K Blanney, Benjamin T Barimah, David Akan-Enge, Joseph Boachie, Kate A Kontor, Patrick Adu","doi":"10.4314/gmj.v57i3.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To assess the inter-laboratory comparability and intra-assay reproducibility of full blood count (FBC) results.Design: Exploratory cross-sectional study.Setting: Three and two selected medical laboratories in the northern and southern zones, respectively.Participants: Forty-nine individuals per zone; 16 type 2 diabetes mellitus, 16 with HbAS haemoglobin type and 17 normal samples.Intervention: Each sample was run eleven times through the analysers in the participating laboratories to evaluate intra-laboratory reproducibility and comparability of FBC results.Main outcome measure: Intra-laboratory reproducibility was evaluated using %coefficient variation (%CV). Interlaboratory comparisons were assessed through t-test or One-Way ANOVA for two-sample and three-sample tests. All statistical testing was undertaken using the two-tailed assumption.Result: Statistically significantly different haemoglobin levels were estimated in both northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.00 g/dL to 3.75 g/dL vs 0.18 g/dL to 1.92 g/dL respectively). Also, total WBC counts significantly differed across laboratories in both northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.15 ×109/L - 3.86 ×109/L vs 0.02 ×109/L to 1.39 ×109/L respectively). Furthermore, platelet counts significantly differed across the participating laboratories in the northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.40 ×109/L to 299.76 ×109/L vs 5.7 ×109/L to 76.9 ×109/L respectively). Moreover, there was evidence of non-reproducibility of results within the respective laboratories in each zone as the respective %CV were outside the acceptable limits.Conclusion: The intra-laboratory non-reproducibility and inter-laboratory non-comparability of FBC results highlight the need to establish a national quality assessment scheme to harmonise laboratory practices nationwide.Funding: This study was funded by the University of Cape Coast Individual-Led Research Support Grant (RSG-INDI-CoHAS-2019-107).","PeriodicalId":94319,"journal":{"name":"Ghana medical journal","volume":"57 3","pages":"210-217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11216730/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ghana medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/gmj.v57i3.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the inter-laboratory comparability and intra-assay reproducibility of full blood count (FBC) results.

Design: Exploratory cross-sectional study.

Setting: Three and two selected medical laboratories in the northern and southern zones, respectively.

Participants: Forty-nine individuals per zone; 16 type 2 diabetes mellitus, 16 with HbAS haemoglobin type and 17 normal samples.

Intervention: Each sample was run eleven times through the analysers in the participating laboratories to evaluate intra-laboratory reproducibility and comparability of FBC results.

Main outcome measure: Intra-laboratory reproducibility was evaluated using %coefficient variation (%CV). Interlaboratory comparisons were assessed through t-test or One-Way ANOVA for two-sample and three-sample tests. All statistical testing was undertaken using the two-tailed assumption.

Result: Statistically significantly different haemoglobin levels were estimated in both northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.00 g/dL to 3.75 g/dL vs 0.18 g/dL to 1.92 g/dL respectively). Also, total WBC counts significantly differed across laboratories in both northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.15 ×10⁹/L - 3.86 ×10⁹/L vs 0.02 ×10⁹/L to 1.39 ×10⁹/L respectively). Furthermore, platelet counts significantly differed across the participating laboratories in the northern and southern zones (mean difference 0.40 ×10⁹/L to 299.76 ×10⁹/L vs 5.7 ×10⁹/L to 76.9 ×10⁹/L respectively). Moreover, there was evidence of non-reproducibility of results within the respective laboratories in each zone as the respective %CV were outside the acceptable limits.

Conclusion: The intra-laboratory non-reproducibility and inter-laboratory non-comparability of FBC results highlight the need to establish a national quality assessment scheme to harmonise laboratory practices nationwide.

Funding: This study was funded by the University of Cape Coast Individual-Led Research Support Grant (RSG-INDI-CoHAS-2019-107).

查看原文本刊更多论文

加纳南部和北部选定实验室的血液学结果缺乏共识。

目的：评估全血细胞计数（FBC）结果的实验室间可比性和测定内重现性：评估全血细胞计数（FBC）结果的实验室间可比性和测定内可重复性：设计：探索性横断面研究：研究地点：北部和南部地区分别选定的三家和两家医学实验室：每个区 49 人；16 名 2 型糖尿病患者、16 名 HbAS 血红蛋白类型患者和 17 名正常样本：干预措施：每个样本在参与实验室的分析仪上运行 11 次，以评估 FBC 结果的实验室内重现性和可比性。实验室间的比较通过 t 检验或单向方差分析进行双样本和三样本检验。所有统计检验均采用双尾假设：结果：据统计，北部和南部地区的血红蛋白水平存在明显差异（平均差异分别为 0.00 g/dL 至 3.75 g/dL 与 0.18 g/dL 至 1.92 g/dL）。北部和南部地区各实验室的白细胞总数也存在显著差异（平均差异分别为 0.15 ×109/L - 3.86 ×109/L vs 0.02 ×109/L - 1.39 ×109/L）。此外，北部和南部地区参与实验室的血小板计数也存在显著差异（平均差异分别为 0.40 ×109/L - 299.76 ×109/L vs 5.7 ×109/L - 76.9 ×109/L）。此外，有证据表明，各区实验室内的结果不具有重现性，因为各自的%CV 都超出了可接受的范围：结论：实验室内FBC结果的不可再现性和实验室间的不可比性突出表明，有必要建立国家质量评估计划，以统一全国的实验室操作：本研究由海岸角大学个人主导研究支持拨款（RSG-INDI-CoHAS-2019-107）资助。

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

Ghana medical journal

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量