{"title":"在多台仪器上使用通用质量控制目标时的化验误差检测:利用模拟数据和实际数据进行的分析。","authors":"Eric S Kilpatrick","doi":"10.1177/00045632241226916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, <i>n</i> > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8005,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","volume":" ","pages":"331-337"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assay error detection when using common quality control targets across multiple instruments: An analysis using simulated and real-world data.\",\"authors\":\"Eric S Kilpatrick\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00045632241226916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, <i>n</i> > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"331-337\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632241226916\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632241226916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assay error detection when using common quality control targets across multiple instruments: An analysis using simulated and real-world data.
Background: Clinical laboratories frequently implement the same tests and internal quality control (QC) rules on identical instruments. It is unclear whether individual QC targets for each analyser or ones that are common to all instruments are preferable. This study modelled how common QC targets influence assay error detection before examining their effect on real-world data.
Methods: The effect of variable bias and imprecision on error detection and false rejection rates when using common or individual QC targets on two instruments was simulated. QC data from tests run on two identical Beckman instruments (6-month period, same QC lot, n > 100 points for each instrument) determined likely real-world consequences.
Results: Compared to individual QC targets, common targets had an asymmetrical effect on systematic error detection, with one instrument assay losing detection power more than the other gained. If individual in-control assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, then common targets led to one assay failing QC more frequently. Applied to two analysers (95 QC levels and 45 tests), common targets reduced one instrument's error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 15/45 (33%) of tests. Such targets also meant 14/45 (31%) of assays on one in-control instrument would fail over twice as frequently as the other (median ratio 1.62, IQR 1.20-2.39) using a 2SD rule.
Conclusions: Compared to instrument-specific QC targets, common targets can reduce the probability of detecting changes in individual assay performance and cause one in-control assay to fail QC more frequently than another. Any impact on clinical care requires further investigation.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is the fully peer reviewed international journal of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry accepts papers that contribute to knowledge in all fields of laboratory medicine, especially those pertaining to the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of human disease. It publishes papers on clinical biochemistry, clinical audit, metabolic medicine, immunology, genetics, biotechnology, haematology, microbiology, computing and management where they have both biochemical and clinical relevance. Papers describing evaluation or implementation of commercial reagent kits or the performance of new analysers require substantial original information. Unless of exceptional interest and novelty, studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not generally considered within the journal''s scope. Studies documenting the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with particular phenotypes will not normally be considered, given the greater strength of genome wide association studies (GWAS). Research undertaken in non-human animals will not be considered for publication in the Annals.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is also the official journal of NVKC (de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie) and JSCC (Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry).