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。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
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":"184-189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","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\":\"184-189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"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\":\"2025/4/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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":"2025/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了与渗透压(OSM)相关的测量不确定度(MU),渗透压(OSM)是临床诊断和治疗的关键参数。该研究比较了直接测量的渗透压(dOSM)和估计的渗透压(eOSM)的不确定性,后者是根据钠、葡萄糖和尿素水平计算的。使用ISO/TS 20914指南,该研究评估了不同分析仪型号和内部质量控制(IQC)批次的eOSM的MUs,并将这些值与dOSM进行了比较。在材料和方法部分,使用两种不同的分析仪(Atellica CH和Advia Chemistry XPT, Siemens Healthineers)进行钠、葡萄糖和尿素分析。采用冰点下降法(Osmomat Auto, Gonotec)测定溶解氧含量,收集数据计算溶解氧含量。根据ISO/TS 20914标准对每个系统进行MU (k = 2, 95%置信度)计算。结果表明,dOSM的扩展标准MU (k = 2, 95%置信区间)较低,为5.56 mOSM/L,而eOSM的MU在Atellica CH系统为8.54 mOSM/L,在Advia Chemistry XPT系统为11.13 mOSM/L。这些发现表明eOSM具有较高的不确定性,提示在临床实践中应谨慎使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信