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 1.3 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":"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}
引用次数: 0

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。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信