BACKGROUND: To analyze the 2017 external quality assessment (EQA) results of newborn screening by MS/MS of amino acids by Chinese National Center for Clinical Laboratories, this study aimed to reflect the performance of clinical laboratories. METHODS: Five dried blood spots were distributed to participants every round. Satisfactory performance was defined as scores more than 80 of acceptable results within the evaluation criterion. The robust coefficient of variability (RCV) of each sample was calculated by measurement systems. The chi-square () test was used to compare the correct recognition rates. RESULTS: EQA results were collected from 150 laboratories for Ala, Val, Arg, Leu, Met, Phe, Tyr, Cit. The overall acceptable rates of the qualitative results were 87.42%, 92.72%, 73.33%, 94.04%, 92.72%, 94.70%, 92.72%, 94.04%, respectively, and the proportion of acceptable quantitative results were 76.51 %, 91.95%, 78.38 %, 92.62%, 93.29%, 93.29%, 94.63%, 91.28%, respectively. There were significant differences in the rates of acceptable quantitative results among different items and between four methods. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the participant laboratories had satisfactory performance for the quantitative results in this EQA scheme. But for qualitative assessment, the laboratory should re-evaluate and validate their reference intervals on a regular basis to improve the consistency of clinical assessment.
BACKGROUND: To analyze the 2017 external quality assessment (EQA) results of newborn screening by MS/MS of amino acids by Chinese National Center for Clinical Laboratories, this study aimed to reflect the performance of clinical laboratories. METHODS: Five dried blood spots were distributed to participants every round. Satisfactory performance was defined as scores more than 80 of acceptable results within the evaluation criterion. The robust coefficient of variability (RCV) of each sample was calculated by measurement systems. The chi-square () test was used to compare the correct recognition rates. RESULTS: EQA results were collected from 150 laboratories for Ala, Val, Arg, Leu, Met, Phe, Tyr, Cit. The overall acceptable rates of the qualitative results were 87.42%, 92.72%, 73.33%, 94.04%, 92.72%, 94.70%, 92.72%, 94.04%, respectively, and the proportion of acceptable quantitative results were 76.51 %, 91.95%, 78.38 %, 92.62%, 93.29%, 93.29%, 94.63%, 91.28%, respectively. There were significant differences in the rates of acceptable quantitative results among different items and between four methods. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the participant laboratories had satisfactory performance for the quantitative results in this EQA scheme. But for qualitative assessment, the laboratory should re-evaluate and validate their reference intervals on a regular basis to improve the consistency of clinical assessment.
Authors: Chao-Wen Yu; Xiao-Yan He; Ke-Xing Wan; Zhao-Jian Yuan; Hao Liu; Juan Zhang; Shan Liu; Jing Yang; Lin Zou Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 1.671