哨兵测试,分析西格玛度量和风险管理方法作为简化方法验证/确认过程的一部分。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1080/00365513.2024.2442512
Claudio Ilardo, Chèhine Lamarti, Batricia Al Muhanna, Michel Bastelica, Nathalie Benaily
{"title":"哨兵测试,分析西格玛度量和风险管理方法作为简化方法验证/确认过程的一部分。","authors":"Claudio Ilardo, Chèhine Lamarti, Batricia Al Muhanna, Michel Bastelica, Nathalie Benaily","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2024.2442512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Verification and validation of analytical methods are crucial aspects of quality assurance in a laboratory. This study aimed to develop a risk analysis and assessment tool to streamline the process of identifying so-called 'sentinel' tests.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The Roche Cobas 8000 systems were evaluated to analyze 83 serum analytes, including routine chemistry, immunoassays, and therapeutic drugs. A failure mode and effects analysis were conducted to produce an analytic risk rating. This was achieved by multiplying the scores for Sigma metrics, the score for potential damage extent, and the score for environmental factors. Each test was assigned a typical risk priority number (RPN). Tests with an RPN of ≤9 were rated as low risk and ranked as 'B'. Tests with an RPN of >10 were considered high risk and graded as 'A'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the Cobas C701/ISE, 17 of 54 methods were rated as 'A' and subject to a systematic method review process. A total of 37 methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence were eligible for a selective verification process. Concerning the Cobas E801, 10 out of 29 methods were classified as 'A' and, therefore, require a systematic verification process. A further nineteen methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence eligible for a select verification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated the high effectiveness of the risk analysis and assessment model developed to identify sentinel tests in the lean management of the verification/validation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"569-576"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sentinel testing, analytical sigma metrics and a risk management approach as part of a simplified method verification/validation process.\",\"authors\":\"Claudio Ilardo, Chèhine Lamarti, Batricia Al Muhanna, Michel Bastelica, Nathalie Benaily\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365513.2024.2442512\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Verification and validation of analytical methods are crucial aspects of quality assurance in a laboratory. This study aimed to develop a risk analysis and assessment tool to streamline the process of identifying so-called 'sentinel' tests.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The Roche Cobas 8000 systems were evaluated to analyze 83 serum analytes, including routine chemistry, immunoassays, and therapeutic drugs. A failure mode and effects analysis were conducted to produce an analytic risk rating. This was achieved by multiplying the scores for Sigma metrics, the score for potential damage extent, and the score for environmental factors. Each test was assigned a typical risk priority number (RPN). Tests with an RPN of ≤9 were rated as low risk and ranked as 'B'. Tests with an RPN of >10 were considered high risk and graded as 'A'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the Cobas C701/ISE, 17 of 54 methods were rated as 'A' and subject to a systematic method review process. A total of 37 methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence were eligible for a selective verification process. Concerning the Cobas E801, 10 out of 29 methods were classified as 'A' and, therefore, require a systematic verification process. A further nineteen methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence eligible for a select verification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated the high effectiveness of the risk analysis and assessment model developed to identify sentinel tests in the lean management of the verification/validation process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"569-576\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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/10.1080/00365513.2024.2442512\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/19 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/10.1080/00365513.2024.2442512","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分析方法的验证和确认是实验室质量保证的关键方面。这项研究旨在开发一种风险分析和评估工具,以简化识别所谓“哨点”检测的过程。材料和方法:对罗氏Cobas 8000系统进行评估,分析83种血清分析物,包括常规化学、免疫测定和治疗药物。通过失效模式和影响分析,得出分析风险等级。这是通过将Sigma指标的分数、潜在损害程度的分数和环境因素的分数相乘来实现的。每个测试都被分配了一个典型的风险优先级编号(RPN)。RPN≤9的测试被评为低风险,并被评为“B”级。RPN为bb10的测试被认为是高风险的,评级为“A”。结果:对于Cobas C701/ISE, 54种方法中有17种被评为“A”级,并接受了系统的方法审查过程。共有37种方法被评为“B”级,因此有资格进行选择性验证过程。关于Cobas E801, 29种方法中有10种被归类为“A”,因此需要系统的验证过程。另外19种方法被分配为“B”级,因此有资格进行选择验证。结论:本研究证明了风险分析和评估模型的高度有效性,该模型用于识别验证/确认过程精益管理中的哨点测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sentinel testing, analytical sigma metrics and a risk management approach as part of a simplified method verification/validation process.

Introduction: Verification and validation of analytical methods are crucial aspects of quality assurance in a laboratory. This study aimed to develop a risk analysis and assessment tool to streamline the process of identifying so-called 'sentinel' tests.

Materials and methods: The Roche Cobas 8000 systems were evaluated to analyze 83 serum analytes, including routine chemistry, immunoassays, and therapeutic drugs. A failure mode and effects analysis were conducted to produce an analytic risk rating. This was achieved by multiplying the scores for Sigma metrics, the score for potential damage extent, and the score for environmental factors. Each test was assigned a typical risk priority number (RPN). Tests with an RPN of ≤9 were rated as low risk and ranked as 'B'. Tests with an RPN of >10 were considered high risk and graded as 'A'.

Results: Regarding the Cobas C701/ISE, 17 of 54 methods were rated as 'A' and subject to a systematic method review process. A total of 37 methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence were eligible for a selective verification process. Concerning the Cobas E801, 10 out of 29 methods were classified as 'A' and, therefore, require a systematic verification process. A further nineteen methods were assigned a rank of 'B' and hence eligible for a select verification.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated the high effectiveness of the risk analysis and assessment model developed to identify sentinel tests in the lean management of the verification/validation process.

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.
期刊最新文献
Short-term stability of routine coagulation tests under different storage temperatures in centrifuged whole blood samples: a practical approach. CgA100 - eGFR-adjusted serum chromogranin A. Assessment of large language models in medical quizzes for clinical chemistry and laboratory management: implications and applications for healthcare artificial intelligence. Performance of enzymatic creatinine methods in the pediatric concentration range. Comparison of two automated immunoassays for quantifying ProGRP, SCC and HE4 in serum: impact on diagnostic accuracy.
×
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