{"title":"Three-way comparison of different ESR measurement methods and analytical performance assessment of TEST1 automated ESR analyzer.","authors":"Kwanlada Chaiwong, Rujira Naksith, Waroonkarn Laiklang, Manissara Yeekaday, Suppakorn Wongkamchai, Orakan Limpornpukdee, Chutitorn Ketloy, Eakachai Prompetchara","doi":"10.1515/dx-2024-0158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Validation and performance assessment of novel ESR analyzer is required before implementation. The objective of this study was to assess the correlation between three ESR measurement methods. Full validation and performance assessment of an alternate method (TEST1) were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three-way correlation assessment for the Westergren (WG), modified Westregren (Mixrate), and alternate (TEST1) methods were performed. Analytical performance of TEST1 including precision, carryover, sample stability, potential interferences as well as effect of hematocrit (Hct) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) were also determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Strong correlation between three ESR measurement methods were observed. Correlation coefficient (r) was 0.902, 0.977, and 0.949 for WG vs. TEST1, WG vs. Mixrate, and TEST1 vs. Mixrate, respectively with absolute bias <5 mm. For TEST1, precision and carryover were within the manufacturer's claim. Samples were stable upto 24 h and 48 h when they were stored at room temperature or 2-8 °C, respectively. No effect of trigyceride and cholesterol was observed. In low Hct samples, no significant different between the results obtained from Fabry's formula corrected WG values and from TEST1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Three-way comparison study yielded a strong correlation between methods. As part of the method validation before implementing a new analyzer, full validation of TEST1 showed that all validated parameters met the manufacturer's specifications. A negative bias was observed but remains within the acceptable criteria. Difference in values for samples with low hematocrit were noted, but these can be corrected by Fabry's formula applied to the values from WG method.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Validation and performance assessment of novel ESR analyzer is required before implementation. The objective of this study was to assess the correlation between three ESR measurement methods. Full validation and performance assessment of an alternate method (TEST1) were also evaluated.
Methods: Three-way correlation assessment for the Westergren (WG), modified Westregren (Mixrate), and alternate (TEST1) methods were performed. Analytical performance of TEST1 including precision, carryover, sample stability, potential interferences as well as effect of hematocrit (Hct) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) were also determined.
Results: Strong correlation between three ESR measurement methods were observed. Correlation coefficient (r) was 0.902, 0.977, and 0.949 for WG vs. TEST1, WG vs. Mixrate, and TEST1 vs. Mixrate, respectively with absolute bias <5 mm. For TEST1, precision and carryover were within the manufacturer's claim. Samples were stable upto 24 h and 48 h when they were stored at room temperature or 2-8 °C, respectively. No effect of trigyceride and cholesterol was observed. In low Hct samples, no significant different between the results obtained from Fabry's formula corrected WG values and from TEST1.
Conclusions: Three-way comparison study yielded a strong correlation between methods. As part of the method validation before implementing a new analyzer, full validation of TEST1 showed that all validated parameters met the manufacturer's specifications. A negative bias was observed but remains within the acceptable criteria. Difference in values for samples with low hematocrit were noted, but these can be corrected by Fabry's formula applied to the values from WG method.
期刊介绍:
Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality. Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error