Error analysis of measurement uncertainty: a snapshot literature review in field of medicine and health in China

IF 0.8 4区工程技术 Q4 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL

Accreditation and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8

Manqing Nie, Jing Chen, Bo Zheng

{"title":"Error analysis of measurement uncertainty: a snapshot literature review in field of medicine and health in China","authors":"Manqing Nie, Jing Chen, Bo Zheng","doi":"10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation.</p><h3>Graphical abstract</h3>\n <figure><div><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></div></figure>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":454,"journal":{"name":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","volume":"28 5","pages":"245 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation.

Graphical abstract

查看原文本刊更多论文

测量不确定度的误差分析——中国医药卫生领域的文献综述

通过文献研究和与国家标准的比较，对医药卫生领域测量不确定度评定中的常见误差进行分析和统计比较，了解医药卫生领域计量不确定度评价的现状。以中国国家知识基础设施（CNKI）为样本群体，采用分层比例抽样（PPS）方法提取医学与健康领域中与测量不确定性相关的期刊文章。将这些文章与Eurachem/CITC指南QUAM进行比较，以分析测量不确定度误差。自2005年以来，学术界对中国知网文献数据库中医学与健康领域测量不确定性的关注呈现爆炸式增长。确定了测量不确定度评定中的七个常见误差。分析的30篇期刊文章中没有一篇是无错误的，总错误率为44%。忽略空白不确定度的错误率为87%，对标准曲线的不正确评估为67%，不正确的有效数字为60%，B型评估信息不足为50%。省级及以上机构的错误率为48%，而省级以下机构的错误比率为43%。两种错误率之间的差异没有统计学意义（p = 0.523）。迫切需要提高医疗卫生领域测量不确定度评估的合理性，并通过国家和国际合作加强教育和学术交流。图形摘要

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

Accreditation and Quality Assurance 工程技术-分析化学

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

22.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accreditation and Quality Assurance has established itself as the leading information and discussion forum for all aspects relevant to quality, transparency and reliability of measurement results in chemical and biological sciences. The journal serves the information needs of researchers, practitioners and decision makers dealing with quality assurance and quality management, including the development and application of metrological principles and concepts such as traceability or measurement uncertainty in the following fields: environment, nutrition, consumer protection, geology, metallurgy, pharmacy, forensics, clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, and microbiology.