BACKGROUND: From 2003 to 2005, the European Union supported the EQUAL-initiative to develop methodological external quality assessment (EQA) schemes for genotyping (EQUALqual), quantitative PCR (EQUALquant), and sequencing (EQUALseq). As a relevant part of the EQUALseq program, a training course was held subsequent to the first EQA Program (EQAP1). The success of this course was reassessed in a 2nd EQUALseq round (EQAP2). METHODS: In September 2005, a 3-day training course took place. We invited 8 laboratories with below-average performance in EQAP1 to improve their methodological and analytical/proficiency skills by lectures and practical work. To compare the results of the pretraining and posttraining EQUALseq rounds, we distributed 2 samples used in the first EQUAL round, but this time we provided different oligonucleotide sets. We evaluated the results by means of a previously described scoring system. RESULTS: In EQAP2, 6 laboratories returned complete data sets, corresponding to an overall 14% of the 43 laboratories that had finished EQAP1. The scoring results for samples A (P=0.0025) and B (P=0.0125) demonstrated a significant improvement in EQAP2. Overall, a substantial improvement of technical and interpretative skills was demonstrated (P=0.0051). In general, the workshop experience was highly rated by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologic EQAPs in DNA sequencing are appropriate tools to uncover strengths and weaknesses in both technique and proficiency, emphasizing the need for mandatory EQAPs. Training courses, together with 2nd-round reiterations, should be implemented into methodological EQAPs in molecular diagnostics to improve technical performance and proficiency in genetic testing.
BACKGROUND: From 2003 to 2005, the European Union supported the EQUAL-initiative to develop methodological external quality assessment (EQA) schemes for genotyping (EQUALqual), quantitative PCR (EQUALquant), and sequencing (EQUALseq). As a relevant part of the EQUALseq program, a training course was held subsequent to the first EQA Program (EQAP1). The success of this course was reassessed in a 2nd EQUALseq round (EQAP2). METHODS: In September 2005, a 3-day training course took place. We invited 8 laboratories with below-average performance in EQAP1 to improve their methodological and analytical/proficiency skills by lectures and practical work. To compare the results of the pretraining and posttraining EQUALseq rounds, we distributed 2 samples used in the first EQUAL round, but this time we provided different oligonucleotide sets. We evaluated the results by means of a previously described scoring system. RESULTS: In EQAP2, 6 laboratories returned complete data sets, corresponding to an overall 14% of the 43 laboratories that had finished EQAP1. The scoring results for samples A (P=0.0025) and B (P=0.0125) demonstrated a significant improvement in EQAP2. Overall, a substantial improvement of technical and interpretative skills was demonstrated (P=0.0051). In general, the workshop experience was highly rated by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologic EQAPs in DNA sequencing are appropriate tools to uncover strengths and weaknesses in both technique and proficiency, emphasizing the need for mandatory EQAPs. Training courses, together with 2nd-round reiterations, should be implemented into methodological EQAPs in molecular diagnostics to improve technical performance and proficiency in genetic testing.
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