基于患者的数据监测是否允许我们重新考虑IQC和EQA之间的关系?

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Tony Badrick, John Sioufi, Derek Holzhauser
{"title":"基于患者的数据监测是否允许我们重新考虑IQC和EQA之间的关系?","authors":"Tony Badrick, John Sioufi, Derek Holzhauser","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2025-1133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently, there is no accepted standard practice for determining the frequency of EQA challenge. The challenge frequency has evolved based on history and local requirements. However, EQA frequency should be based on identifying patient risks caused by poorly performing laboratories, methods, or processes in any phase of the total testing cycle. The role of IQC is to ensure result consistency from day to day and to halt reporting of results if there is an analytical failure. Historically, both activities have been based on synthetic control material. With the development of patient-based approaches to IQC and EQA, it is possible to continuously monitor analytical systems using the same patient parameter, usually the mean or median. These techniques can provide laboratories with additional information to reduce patient risk. There are limitations of Patient-Based Quality Assurance (PBQA), fundamentally the lack of middleware and connection of the analyzers to the EQA provider. It cannot be used to monitor the success of harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure. But the use of patient-based approaches offers an opportunity to reconsider how EQA can be undertaken and the relationship between IQC and EQA. If PBRTQC and PBQA could be implemented to provide daily peer group comparisons, then method-specific bias could be identified quickly by a laboratory. If this could be supplemented with a commutable, reference value assigned EQA program, then monitoring harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure could be achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does patient-based data monitoring allow us to reconsider the relationship between IQC and EQA?\",\"authors\":\"Tony Badrick, John Sioufi, Derek Holzhauser\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2025-1133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Currently, there is no accepted standard practice for determining the frequency of EQA challenge. The challenge frequency has evolved based on history and local requirements. However, EQA frequency should be based on identifying patient risks caused by poorly performing laboratories, methods, or processes in any phase of the total testing cycle. The role of IQC is to ensure result consistency from day to day and to halt reporting of results if there is an analytical failure. Historically, both activities have been based on synthetic control material. With the development of patient-based approaches to IQC and EQA, it is possible to continuously monitor analytical systems using the same patient parameter, usually the mean or median. These techniques can provide laboratories with additional information to reduce patient risk. There are limitations of Patient-Based Quality Assurance (PBQA), fundamentally the lack of middleware and connection of the analyzers to the EQA provider. It cannot be used to monitor the success of harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure. But the use of patient-based approaches offers an opportunity to reconsider how EQA can be undertaken and the relationship between IQC and EQA. If PBRTQC and PBQA could be implemented to provide daily peer group comparisons, then method-specific bias could be identified quickly by a laboratory. If this could be supplemented with a commutable, reference value assigned EQA program, then monitoring harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure could be achieved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1133\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1133","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,对于确定EQA质疑的频率没有公认的标准做法。挑战频率根据历史和当地需求而变化。然而,EQA的频率应基于在整个检测周期的任何阶段中识别由实验室、方法或过程的不良表现引起的患者风险。IQC的作用是确保每天结果的一致性,如果分析失败,则停止报告结果。从历史上看,这两种活动都是基于合成控制材料。随着以患者为基础的IQC和EQA方法的发展,可以使用相同的患者参数(通常是平均值或中位数)连续监测分析系统。这些技术可以为实验室提供额外的信息,以减少患者的风险。基于患者的质量保证(PBQA)有其局限性,主要是缺乏中间件以及分析器与EQA提供者之间的连接。它不能用于监测参照测量程序的测定方法的协调/标准化的成功。但是,以患者为基础的方法的使用为重新考虑如何进行EQA以及IQC和EQA之间的关系提供了一个机会。如果可以实施PBRTQC和PBQA来提供日常的同伴组比较,那么实验室可以快速识别方法特异性偏差。如果可以用可交换的、指定参考值的EQA程序进行补充,则可以实现对参考测量程序的检测方法的监控协调/标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does patient-based data monitoring allow us to reconsider the relationship between IQC and EQA?

Currently, there is no accepted standard practice for determining the frequency of EQA challenge. The challenge frequency has evolved based on history and local requirements. However, EQA frequency should be based on identifying patient risks caused by poorly performing laboratories, methods, or processes in any phase of the total testing cycle. The role of IQC is to ensure result consistency from day to day and to halt reporting of results if there is an analytical failure. Historically, both activities have been based on synthetic control material. With the development of patient-based approaches to IQC and EQA, it is possible to continuously monitor analytical systems using the same patient parameter, usually the mean or median. These techniques can provide laboratories with additional information to reduce patient risk. There are limitations of Patient-Based Quality Assurance (PBQA), fundamentally the lack of middleware and connection of the analyzers to the EQA provider. It cannot be used to monitor the success of harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure. But the use of patient-based approaches offers an opportunity to reconsider how EQA can be undertaken and the relationship between IQC and EQA. If PBRTQC and PBQA could be implemented to provide daily peer group comparisons, then method-specific bias could be identified quickly by a laboratory. If this could be supplemented with a commutable, reference value assigned EQA program, then monitoring harmonization/standardization of assays to a reference measurement procedure could be achieved.

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
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
×
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