Literature DB >> 25646050

Evaluation of imprecision, bias and total error of clinical chemistry analysers.

S S Biswas1, M Bindra1, V Jain1, P Gokhale1.   

Abstract

Context Two Biosystems analysers are used in our laboratory, a fully automated A25 and a semi-automated BTS-350. Internal quality control is done for both but external quality control only for A25. As BTS-350 is used for backup, it is important that the results of both analysers are not just comparable but also within predefined limits of systematic, random and total error (TE). Aim To evaluate the imprecision, bias and TE of the two Biosystem analysers. Materials and Methods Biosystems level-1 quality control sera lot number 70A was run in duplicate for 32 days on both the analysers. Between day imprecision (measured by the coefficient of variation), bias and TE were calculated for ten analytes and were checked to see whether they are within the acceptable minimum limits, desirable limits and optimum limits of allowable error based on specifications on Westgard's website updated in 2014. Results On both the analysers, all the analytes except alkaline phosphatase were within the acceptable minimum limits of TE and most analytes were within the desirable limits of TE. Only TG on A25 was within the optimum limit of TE. Conclusion The two Biosystem analysers performed comparably with errors within acceptable limits for most analytes. BTS-350 was found to be a suitable and ready backup analyser for A25.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Imprecision; Total error

Year:  2014        PMID: 25646050      PMCID: PMC4310841          DOI: 10.1007/s12291-014-0448-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem        ISSN: 0970-1915


  8 in total

1.  Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress.

Authors:  C Ricós; V Alvarez; F Cava; J V García-Lario; A Hernández; C V Jiménez; J Minchinela; C Perich; M Simón
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

2.  Proposed quality specifications for the imprecision and inaccuracy of analytical systems for clinical chemistry.

Authors:  C G Fraser; P H Petersen; C Ricos; R Haeckel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem       Date:  1992-05

3.  Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: a laboratory implementation guide.

Authors:  G H White; I Farrance
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2004

4.  Assessment of bias with emphasis on method comparison.

Authors:  Roger Johnson
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08

5.  Evaluating assay precision.

Authors:  Douglas Chesher
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08

6.  Evaluation of the ABX Pentra 400: a newly available clinical chemistry analyser.

Authors:  Pascal Coudène; Benjamin Marson; Stéphanie Badiou; Sébastien Flavier; Sébastien Anelli; Jean Paul Cristol; Anne Marie Dupuy
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Gross overestimation of total allowable error based on biological variation.

Authors:  Wytze P Oosterhuis
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 8.  Need for improved instrument and kit evaluations.

Authors:  J R Hackney; G S Cembrowski
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.493

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  A comparative study on the effect of blood collection tubes on stress oxidative markers.

Authors:  Alireza Bastin; Saba Fooladi; Amir Hossein Doustimotlagh; Sina Vakili; Amir Hashem Aminizadeh; Sanaz Faramarz; Hamidreza Shiri; Mohammad Hadi Nematollahi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.