在多台仪器上使用通用质量控制目标时的化验误差检测:利用模拟数据和实际数据进行的分析。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-11 DOI:10.1177/00045632241226916
Eric S Kilpatrick
{"title":"在多台仪器上使用通用质量控制目标时的化验误差检测:利用模拟数据和实际数据进行的分析。","authors":"Eric S Kilpatrick","doi":"10.1177/00045632241226916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, <i>n</i> > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8005,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","volume":" ","pages":"331-337"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assay error detection when using common quality control targets across multiple instruments: An analysis using simulated and real-world data.\",\"authors\":\"Eric S Kilpatrick\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00045632241226916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, <i>n</i> > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"331-337\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632241226916\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632241226916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 临床实验室经常在相同的仪器上执行相同的测试和内部质量控制(QC)规则。目前还不清楚是针对每台分析仪的单独质控目标更可取,还是所有仪器通用的质控目标更可取。本研究先模拟了通用质控目标如何影响检测误差,然后再检验它们对实际数据的影响。方法 模拟了在两台仪器上使用通用或单独质控目标时,变量偏差和不精确度对错误检测率和误判率的影响。在两台完全相同的贝克曼仪器上运行的测试质控数据(6 个月期间,同一质控批次,每台仪器 n>100 个点)确定了可能的实际后果。结果 与单个质控目标相比,共同目标对系统误差检测的影响不对称,一台仪器检测能力的损失大于另一台仪器检测能力的提高。如果单个对照化验的标准偏差(SD)不同,那么共同目标会导致一种化验更频繁地通过质控。应用于 2 台分析仪(95 个质控水平,45 次测试),在 15/45 次测试(33%)中,共同目标使一台仪器的误差检出率降低了 ≥0.4 sigma。使用 2SD 规则,这些目标也意味着一台对照仪器上 14/45 次(31%)检测的失败频率是另一台仪器的两倍(中位数比率 1.62,IQR 1.20-2.39)。结论 与特定仪器的质控目标相比,通用目标会降低检测到单个化验性能变化的概率,并导致一个对照化验的质控失败频率高于另一个。对临床护理的任何影响都需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assay error detection when using common quality control targets across multiple instruments: An analysis using simulated and real-world data.

Background: Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.

Methods: The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, n > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.

Results: Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.

Conclusions: Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is the fully peer reviewed international journal of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry accepts papers that contribute to knowledge in all fields of laboratory medicine, especially those pertaining to the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of human disease. It publishes papers on clinical biochemistry, clinical audit, metabolic medicine, immunology, genetics, biotechnology, haematology, microbiology, computing and management where they have both biochemical and clinical relevance. Papers describing evaluation or implementation of commercial reagent kits or the performance of new analysers require substantial original information. Unless of exceptional interest and novelty, studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not generally considered within the journal''s scope. Studies documenting the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with particular phenotypes will not normally be considered, given the greater strength of genome wide association studies (GWAS). Research undertaken in non-human animals will not be considered for publication in the Annals. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is also the official journal of NVKC (de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie) and JSCC (Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry).
×
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