3种多剂量瓶跟踪方法的准确度和精密度,为实际受控药品跟踪提供依据。

IF 1.3 3区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Lauren R Forsythe, Jessica A Barazowski
{"title":"3种多剂量瓶跟踪方法的准确度和精密度,为实际受控药品跟踪提供依据。","authors":"Lauren R Forsythe, Jessica A Barazowski","doi":"10.2460/ajvr.24.10.0307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the precision and accuracy of 3 common methods (method 1, actual draws of the volume remaining; method 2, weight tracking of the volume remaining and/or the volume removed; and method 3, discrepancy percentage at the end of each vial) for monitoring volumes in vials of injectable controlled drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For methods 1 and 2, doses were drawn from a vial containing a known amount of sterile water. For method 1, after each dose was removed, the remaining quantity of liquid was withdrawn, measured, and reinjected into the vial. The estimated and actual hub loss were calculated. For method 2, the syringe with the needle attached was weighed immediately prior to each draw and reweighed after the draw. The vial was weighed after each draw and compared to the expected weight of 1 g/mL. For method 3, the total discrepancy volume per vial was determined for vials used from January 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. The discrepancy percentage between the calculated amount remaining and 0 mL was determined for each vial. Accuracy and precision were determined for each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Method 2 was more accurate than method 1. Precision was equal for methods 1 and 2, with method 3 having the lowest precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods 1 and 2 have accuracy and precision sufficient to justify their use in practice. Method 3 is not sufficiently precise to be used alone.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The method(s) chosen should be based on accuracy and precision as well as the pros and cons of each method.</p>","PeriodicalId":7754,"journal":{"name":"American journal of veterinary research","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and precision of 3 multidose vial tracking methods to inform controlled drug tracking in practice.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren R Forsythe, Jessica A Barazowski\",\"doi\":\"10.2460/ajvr.24.10.0307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the precision and accuracy of 3 common methods (method 1, actual draws of the volume remaining; method 2, weight tracking of the volume remaining and/or the volume removed; and method 3, discrepancy percentage at the end of each vial) for monitoring volumes in vials of injectable controlled drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For methods 1 and 2, doses were drawn from a vial containing a known amount of sterile water. For method 1, after each dose was removed, the remaining quantity of liquid was withdrawn, measured, and reinjected into the vial. The estimated and actual hub loss were calculated. For method 2, the syringe with the needle attached was weighed immediately prior to each draw and reweighed after the draw. The vial was weighed after each draw and compared to the expected weight of 1 g/mL. For method 3, the total discrepancy volume per vial was determined for vials used from January 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. The discrepancy percentage between the calculated amount remaining and 0 mL was determined for each vial. Accuracy and precision were determined for each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Method 2 was more accurate than method 1. Precision was equal for methods 1 and 2, with method 3 having the lowest precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods 1 and 2 have accuracy and precision sufficient to justify their use in practice. Method 3 is not sufficiently precise to be used alone.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The method(s) chosen should be based on accuracy and precision as well as the pros and cons of each method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of veterinary research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of veterinary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.24.10.0307\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of veterinary research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.24.10.0307","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价3种常用方法的精密度和准确度(方法一,实际抽取剩余体积;方法2,剩余体积和/或移除体积的重量跟踪;方法3,每瓶末端的差异百分比)用于监测注射管制药物的小瓶中的体积。方法:对于方法1和方法2,从含有已知量无菌水的小瓶中抽取剂量。对于方法1,在每次剂量被取出后,取出剩余的液体量,测量,并重新注入小瓶。计算了估计的和实际的轮毂损耗。对于方法2,每次抽吸前立即称重附有针头的注射器,并在抽吸后重新称重。每次抽取后称重,并与1 g/mL的预期重量进行比较。对于方法3,确定从2022年1月1日至2023年3月31日使用的小瓶的每瓶总差异体积。计算出的剩余量与每瓶0 mL之间的差异百分比。测定了每种方法的准确度和精密度。结果:方法2的准确度高于方法1。方法1和方法2的精度相等,方法3的精度最低。结论:方法1和方法2具有较高的准确度和精密度,可在实际中应用。方法3不够精确,不能单独使用。临床相关性:所选择的方法应基于准确性和精密度以及每种方法的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy and precision of 3 multidose vial tracking methods to inform controlled drug tracking in practice.

Objective: To evaluate the precision and accuracy of 3 common methods (method 1, actual draws of the volume remaining; method 2, weight tracking of the volume remaining and/or the volume removed; and method 3, discrepancy percentage at the end of each vial) for monitoring volumes in vials of injectable controlled drugs.

Methods: For methods 1 and 2, doses were drawn from a vial containing a known amount of sterile water. For method 1, after each dose was removed, the remaining quantity of liquid was withdrawn, measured, and reinjected into the vial. The estimated and actual hub loss were calculated. For method 2, the syringe with the needle attached was weighed immediately prior to each draw and reweighed after the draw. The vial was weighed after each draw and compared to the expected weight of 1 g/mL. For method 3, the total discrepancy volume per vial was determined for vials used from January 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. The discrepancy percentage between the calculated amount remaining and 0 mL was determined for each vial. Accuracy and precision were determined for each method.

Results: Method 2 was more accurate than method 1. Precision was equal for methods 1 and 2, with method 3 having the lowest precision.

Conclusions: Methods 1 and 2 have accuracy and precision sufficient to justify their use in practice. Method 3 is not sufficiently precise to be used alone.

Clinical relevance: The method(s) chosen should be based on accuracy and precision as well as the pros and cons of each method.

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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
186
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Veterinary Research supports the collaborative exchange of information between researchers and clinicians by publishing novel research findings that bridge the gulf between basic research and clinical practice or that help to translate laboratory research and preclinical studies to the development of clinical trials and clinical practice. The journal welcomes submission of high-quality original studies and review articles in a wide range of scientific fields, including anatomy, anesthesiology, animal welfare, behavior, epidemiology, genetics, heredity, infectious disease, molecular biology, oncology, pharmacology, pathogenic mechanisms, physiology, surgery, theriogenology, toxicology, and vaccinology. Species of interest include production animals, companion animals, equids, exotic animals, birds, reptiles, and wild and marine animals. Reports of laboratory animal studies and studies involving the use of animals as experimental models of human diseases are considered only when the study results are of demonstrable benefit to the species used in the research or to another species of veterinary interest. Other fields of interest or animals species are not necessarily excluded from consideration, but such reports must focus on novel research findings. Submitted papers must make an original and substantial contribution to the veterinary medicine knowledge base; preliminary studies are not appropriate.
×
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