Consistency in the Assessment of Dried Blood Spot Specimen Size and Quality in U.K. Newborn Screening Laboratories.

IF 4 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY International Journal of Neonatal Screening Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.3390/ijns10030060
Stuart J Moat, James R Bonham, Christine Cavanagh, Margaret Birch, Caroline Griffith, Lynette Shakespeare, Clare Le Masurier, Claire Manfredonia, Beverly Hird, Philippa Goddard, Sarah Smith, Laura Wainwright, Rachel S Carling, Jennifer Cundick, Fiona Jenkinson, Catherine Collingwood, Nick Flynn, Nazia Taj, Mehdi Mirzazadeh, Tejswurree Ramgoolam, Liz Robinson, Amy Headley, Tessa Morgan, David Elliman, Lesley Tetlow
{"title":"Consistency in the Assessment of Dried Blood Spot Specimen Size and Quality in U.K. Newborn Screening Laboratories.","authors":"Stuart J Moat, James R Bonham, Christine Cavanagh, Margaret Birch, Caroline Griffith, Lynette Shakespeare, Clare Le Masurier, Claire Manfredonia, Beverly Hird, Philippa Goddard, Sarah Smith, Laura Wainwright, Rachel S Carling, Jennifer Cundick, Fiona Jenkinson, Catherine Collingwood, Nick Flynn, Nazia Taj, Mehdi Mirzazadeh, Tejswurree Ramgoolam, Liz Robinson, Amy Headley, Tessa Morgan, David Elliman, Lesley Tetlow","doi":"10.3390/ijns10030060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2015, U.K. newborn screening (NBS) laboratory guidelines were introduced to standardize dried blood spot (DBS) specimen quality acceptance and specify a minimum acceptable DBS diameter of ≥7 mm. The UK 'acceptable' avoidable repeat rate (AVRR) is ≤2%. To assess inter-laboratory variability in specimen acceptance/rejection, two sets of colored scanned images (<i>n</i> = 40/set) of both good and poor-quality DBS specimens were distributed to all 16 U.K. NBS laboratories for evaluation as part of an external quality assurance (EQA) assessment. The mean (range) number of specimens rejected in the first EQA distribution was 7 (1-16) and in the second EQA distribution was 7 (0-16), demonstrating that adherence to the 2015 guidelines was highly variable. A new minimum standard for DBS size of ≥8 mm (to enable a minimum of six sub-punches from two DBS) was discussed. NBS laboratories undertook a prospective audit and demonstrated that using ≥8 mm as the minimum acceptable DBS diameter would increase the AVRR from 2.1% (range 0.55% to 5.5%) to 7.8% (range 0.55% to 22.7%). A significant inverse association between the number of specimens rejected in the DBS EQA distributions and the predicted AVVR (using ≥8 mm minimum standard) was observed (r = -0.734, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Before implementing more stringent standards, the impact of a standard operating procedure (SOP) designed to enable a standardized approach of visual assessment and using the existing ≥7 mm diameter (to enable a minimum of four sub-punches from two DBS) as the minimum standard was assessed in a retrospective audit. Implementation of the SOP and using the ≥7 mm DBS diameter would increase the AVRR from 2.3% (range 0.63% to 5.3%) to 6.5% (range 4.3% to 20.9%). The results demonstrate that there is inconsistency in applying the acceptance/rejection criteria, and that a low AVVR is not an indication of good-quality specimens being received into laboratories. Further work is underway to introduce and maintain standards without increasing the AVRR to unacceptable levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":14159,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns10030060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2015, U.K. newborn screening (NBS) laboratory guidelines were introduced to standardize dried blood spot (DBS) specimen quality acceptance and specify a minimum acceptable DBS diameter of ≥7 mm. The UK 'acceptable' avoidable repeat rate (AVRR) is ≤2%. To assess inter-laboratory variability in specimen acceptance/rejection, two sets of colored scanned images (n = 40/set) of both good and poor-quality DBS specimens were distributed to all 16 U.K. NBS laboratories for evaluation as part of an external quality assurance (EQA) assessment. The mean (range) number of specimens rejected in the first EQA distribution was 7 (1-16) and in the second EQA distribution was 7 (0-16), demonstrating that adherence to the 2015 guidelines was highly variable. A new minimum standard for DBS size of ≥8 mm (to enable a minimum of six sub-punches from two DBS) was discussed. NBS laboratories undertook a prospective audit and demonstrated that using ≥8 mm as the minimum acceptable DBS diameter would increase the AVRR from 2.1% (range 0.55% to 5.5%) to 7.8% (range 0.55% to 22.7%). A significant inverse association between the number of specimens rejected in the DBS EQA distributions and the predicted AVVR (using ≥8 mm minimum standard) was observed (r = -0.734, p = 0.003). Before implementing more stringent standards, the impact of a standard operating procedure (SOP) designed to enable a standardized approach of visual assessment and using the existing ≥7 mm diameter (to enable a minimum of four sub-punches from two DBS) as the minimum standard was assessed in a retrospective audit. Implementation of the SOP and using the ≥7 mm DBS diameter would increase the AVRR from 2.3% (range 0.63% to 5.3%) to 6.5% (range 4.3% to 20.9%). The results demonstrate that there is inconsistency in applying the acceptance/rejection criteria, and that a low AVVR is not an indication of good-quality specimens being received into laboratories. Further work is underway to introduce and maintain standards without increasing the AVRR to unacceptable levels.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国新生儿筛查实验室在评估干血斑样本大小和质量方面的一致性。
2015 年,英国出台了新生儿筛查 (NBS) 实验室指南,以规范干血斑 (DBS) 标本的质量验收,并规定可接受的最小 DBS 直径为≥7 毫米。英国 "可接受的 "可避免重复率(AVRR)为≤2%。为了评估标本接受/剔除的实验室间差异,作为外部质量保证(EQA)评估的一部分,向英国所有 16 家 NBS 实验室分发了两组质量好和质量差的 DBS 标本的彩色扫描图像(n = 40/组)进行评估。在第一次 EQA 分配中被拒绝的标本平均数量(范围)为 7 份(1-16 份),在第二次 EQA 分配中被拒绝的标本平均数量(范围)为 7 份(0-16 份),这表明对 2015 年指南的遵守情况差异很大。会议讨论了新的 DBS 最小尺寸标准,即≥8 毫米(以便从两个 DBS 中至少打出六个小孔)。NBS 实验室进行了前瞻性审核,结果表明,将≥8 毫米作为可接受的最小 DBS 直径将使 AVRR 从 2.1%(范围为 0.55% 至 5.5%)增加到 7.8%(范围为 0.55% 至 22.7%)。在 DBS EQA 分布中被剔除的样本数量与预测的 AVVR(使用≥8 mm 的最小标准)之间存在明显的反向关联(r = -0.734,p = 0.003)。在实施更严格的标准之前,我们通过回顾性审核评估了标准操作程序(SOP)的影响,该程序旨在实现视觉评估的标准化方法,并将现有的≥7 毫米直径(使两个 DBS 至少能完成四个子穿刺)作为最低标准。实施 SOP 和使用直径≥7 毫米的 DBS 将使 AVRR 从 2.3%(范围为 0.63% 至 5.3%)增加到 6.5%(范围为 4.3% 至 20.9%)。结果表明,在应用接受/拒绝标准时存在不一致性,低 AVVR 并不表明实验室收到的标本质量良好。目前正在开展进一步的工作,以便在不将 AVRR 提高到不可接受水平的情况下引入和维持标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Neonatal Screening
International Journal of Neonatal Screening Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cystic Fibrosis Screening Efficacy and Seasonal Variation in California: 15-Year Comparison of IRT Cutoffs Versus Daily Percentile for First-Tier Testing. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics ACT Sheets Are a Vital Resource for State Newborn Screening Programs. DNAJC12 Deficiency, an Emerging Condition Picked Up by Newborn Screening: A Case Illustration and a Novel Variant Identified. Psychological Impact of Presymptomatic X-Linked ALD Diagnosis and Surveillance: A Small Qualitative Study of Patient and Parent Experiences. Incidence of Inborn Errors of Metabolism and Endocrine Disorders Among 40965 Newborn Infants at Riyadh Second Health Cluster of the Ministry of Health Saudi Arabia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1