BACKGROUND: A variety of proficiency testing schemes are available for specific molecular analyses, but there is an acute need for more widely accessible schemes to assess and demonstrate general competence in DNA analysis. METHODS: Fifteen laboratories, including academic, clinical, and commercial organizations, were recruited into the prototype assessment exercise. A range of test samples were provided, and participants were required to extract DNA from simple matrices, perform PCR amplification, and score the samples as positive or negative by electrophoretic analysis of the amplification products. Results were requested as both gel images and a completed results table, and the performance of each laboratory was then scored on the submitted analytical results. RESULTS: Overall, laboratories performed the analysis successfully, with participants scoring a high proportion of the samples correctly in the two rounds of the scheme. However, not all of the laboratories were able to achieve amplification for all samples, and the performance of some laboratories was not consistent in the two rounds. In addition, several analytical problems were encountered at all stages of the process, including DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and correct recording of results. CONCLUSIONS: The generic approach described here has enabled effective cross-sectoral benchmarking of laboratories from a variety of analytical sectors. The problems encountered by some participating laboratories highlight the need for quality control and checks at all stages of the process to ensure accuracy of results. A statistical analysis of the results (ANOVA) allowed meaningful comparison of the consistency and sensitivity achieved by laboratories, demonstrating that an effective balance was achieved between the level of data obtained from laboratories and the time expenditure required from participants.
BACKGROUND: A variety of proficiency testing schemes are available for specific molecular analyses, but there is an acute need for more widely accessible schemes to assess and demonstrate general competence in DNA analysis. METHODS: Fifteen laboratories, including academic, clinical, and commercial organizations, were recruited into the prototype assessment exercise. A range of test samples were provided, and participants were required to extract DNA from simple matrices, perform PCR amplification, and score the samples as positive or negative by electrophoretic analysis of the amplification products. Results were requested as both gel images and a completed results table, and the performance of each laboratory was then scored on the submitted analytical results. RESULTS: Overall, laboratories performed the analysis successfully, with participants scoring a high proportion of the samples correctly in the two rounds of the scheme. However, not all of the laboratories were able to achieve amplification for all samples, and the performance of some laboratories was not consistent in the two rounds. In addition, several analytical problems were encountered at all stages of the process, including DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and correct recording of results. CONCLUSIONS: The generic approach described here has enabled effective cross-sectoral benchmarking of laboratories from a variety of analytical sectors. The problems encountered by some participating laboratories highlight the need for quality control and checks at all stages of the process to ensure accuracy of results. A statistical analysis of the results (ANOVA) allowed meaningful comparison of the consistency and sensitivity achieved by laboratories, demonstrating that an effective balance was achieved between the level of data obtained from laboratories and the time expenditure required from participants.
Authors: Lisa V Kalman; Ira M Lubin; Shannon Barker; Desiree du Sart; Rob Elles; Wayne W Grody; Mario Pazzagli; Sue Richards; Iris Schrijver; Barbara Zehnbauer Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.534