测量不确定度的误差分析——中国医药卫生领域的文献综述

IF 0.8 4区 工程技术 Q4 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL Accreditation and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8
Manqing Nie, Jing Chen, Bo Zheng
{"title":"测量不确定度的误差分析——中国医药卫生领域的文献综述","authors":"Manqing Nie,&nbsp;Jing Chen,&nbsp;Bo Zheng","doi":"10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation.</p><h3>Graphical abstract</h3>\n <figure><div><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></div></figure>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":454,"journal":{"name":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Error analysis of measurement uncertainty: a snapshot literature review in field of medicine and health in China\",\"authors\":\"Manqing Nie,&nbsp;Jing Chen,&nbsp;Bo Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation.</p><h3>Graphical abstract</h3>\\n <figure><div><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></div></figure>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过文献研究和与国家标准的比较,对医药卫生领域测量不确定度评定中的常见误差进行分析和统计比较,了解医药卫生领域计量不确定度评价的现状。以中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI)为样本群体,采用分层比例抽样(PPS)方法提取医学与健康领域中与测量不确定性相关的期刊文章。将这些文章与Eurachem/CITC指南QUAM进行比较,以分析测量不确定度误差。自2005年以来,学术界对中国知网文献数据库中医学与健康领域测量不确定性的关注呈现爆炸式增长。确定了测量不确定度评定中的七个常见误差。分析的30篇期刊文章中没有一篇是无错误的,总错误率为44%。忽略空白不确定度的错误率为87%,对标准曲线的不正确评估为67%,不正确的有效数字为60%,B型评估信息不足为50%。省级及以上机构的错误率为48%,而省级以下机构的错误比率为43%。两种错误率之间的差异没有统计学意义(p = 0.523)。迫切需要提高医疗卫生领域测量不确定度评估的合理性,并通过国家和国际合作加强教育和学术交流。图形摘要
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Error analysis of measurement uncertainty: a snapshot literature review in field of medicine and health in China

To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation.

Graphical abstract

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
Accreditation and Quality Assurance
Accreditation and Quality Assurance 工程技术-分析化学
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accreditation and Quality Assurance has established itself as the leading information and discussion forum for all aspects relevant to quality, transparency and reliability of measurement results in chemical and biological sciences. The journal serves the information needs of researchers, practitioners and decision makers dealing with quality assurance and quality management, including the development and application of metrological principles and concepts such as traceability or measurement uncertainty in the following fields: environment, nutrition, consumer protection, geology, metallurgy, pharmacy, forensics, clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, and microbiology.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Certification of the total element mass fractions in UME EnvCRM 03 soil sample via a joint research project The optimization approach for uncertainty assessment of the heating value of aviation fuel Collusion or falsification of results in PT: why does it happen and how can it be prevented? Points to consider when establishing an equipment calibration programme in a conventional food microbiology laboratory for ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation purpose Approaches for the production of reference materials with qualitative properties—The new International Standard ISO 33406
×
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