Mehmet Fatih Alpdemir, Sezen Tutar, Medine Alpdemir
{"title":"根据 ISO/TS 20914 评估直接和估计血清渗透压的测量不确定性:对临床诊断的影响。","authors":"Mehmet Fatih Alpdemir, Sezen Tutar, Medine Alpdemir","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2025.2487988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines the measurement uncertainties (MU) associated with osmolality (OSM), a crucial parameter in clinical diagnostics and treatment. The research compares the uncertainties of directly measured osmolality (dOSM) with those of estimated osmolality (eOSM), which is calculated based on sodium, glucose, and urea levels. Using ISO/TS 20914 guidelines, the study evaluates the MUs of eOSM across different analyzer models and internal quality control (IQC) lots and compares these values with dOSM. In the materials and methods section, sodium, glucose, and urea analyses were performed using two different analyzers (Atellica CH and Advia Chemistry XPT, Siemens Healthineers). OSM was measured using the freezing point depression method (Osmomat Auto, Gonotec) and data were collected to calculate eOSM. MU (<i>k</i> = 2, 95% confidence) calculations were conducted according to the ISO/TS 20914 standard for each system. The results show that the expanded standard MU (<i>k</i> = 2, 95% confidence) for dOSM is low at 5.56 mOSM/L, while the MU for eOSM is 8.54 mOSM/L for the Atellica CH system and 11.13 mOSM/L for the Advia Chemistry XPT system. These findings indicate that eOSM has higher uncertainty, suggesting it should be used with caution in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in direct and estimated serum osmolality according to ISO/TS 20914: implications for clinical diagnostics.\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Fatih Alpdemir, Sezen Tutar, Medine Alpdemir\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365513.2025.2487988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study examines the measurement uncertainties (MU) associated with osmolality (OSM), a crucial parameter in clinical diagnostics and treatment. The research compares the uncertainties of directly measured osmolality (dOSM) with those of estimated osmolality (eOSM), which is calculated based on sodium, glucose, and urea levels. Using ISO/TS 20914 guidelines, the study evaluates the MUs of eOSM across different analyzer models and internal quality control (IQC) lots and compares these values with dOSM. In the materials and methods section, sodium, glucose, and urea analyses were performed using two different analyzers (Atellica CH and Advia Chemistry XPT, Siemens Healthineers). OSM was measured using the freezing point depression method (Osmomat Auto, Gonotec) and data were collected to calculate eOSM. MU (<i>k</i> = 2, 95% confidence) calculations were conducted according to the ISO/TS 20914 standard for each system. The results show that the expanded standard MU (<i>k</i> = 2, 95% confidence) for dOSM is low at 5.56 mOSM/L, while the MU for eOSM is 8.54 mOSM/L for the Atellica CH system and 11.13 mOSM/L for the Advia Chemistry XPT system. These findings indicate that eOSM has higher uncertainty, suggesting it should be used with caution in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2025.2487988\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2025.2487988","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in direct and estimated serum osmolality according to ISO/TS 20914: implications for clinical diagnostics.
This study examines the measurement uncertainties (MU) associated with osmolality (OSM), a crucial parameter in clinical diagnostics and treatment. The research compares the uncertainties of directly measured osmolality (dOSM) with those of estimated osmolality (eOSM), which is calculated based on sodium, glucose, and urea levels. Using ISO/TS 20914 guidelines, the study evaluates the MUs of eOSM across different analyzer models and internal quality control (IQC) lots and compares these values with dOSM. In the materials and methods section, sodium, glucose, and urea analyses were performed using two different analyzers (Atellica CH and Advia Chemistry XPT, Siemens Healthineers). OSM was measured using the freezing point depression method (Osmomat Auto, Gonotec) and data were collected to calculate eOSM. MU (k = 2, 95% confidence) calculations were conducted according to the ISO/TS 20914 standard for each system. The results show that the expanded standard MU (k = 2, 95% confidence) for dOSM is low at 5.56 mOSM/L, while the MU for eOSM is 8.54 mOSM/L for the Atellica CH system and 11.13 mOSM/L for the Advia Chemistry XPT system. These findings indicate that eOSM has higher uncertainty, suggesting it should be used with caution in clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry.
The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.