Literature DB >> 31845101

Measurement Uncertainty Impacts Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus: Reliable Minimal Difference of Plasma Glucose Results.

Sandra Keutmann1, Stephanie Zylla1,2, Mathilde Dahl1, Nele Friedrich1,2, Rüdiger Landgraf3, Lutz Heinemann4, Anders Kallner5, Matthias Nauck1,2, Astrid Petersmann6,7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is based on suitable cut-off values of specific biomarkers, such as the concentration of glucose in plasma. The German Diabetes Association has very recently published a clinical practice guideline on the definition, classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that recommends measurements of plasma glucose concentration have an imprecision defined as a minimal difference (MD) of at a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 7.0 mmol/L. To obtain reliable values for the MD, we investigated long-term and short-term measurement uncertainty.
METHODS: The imprecision was determined by two approaches: (1) a long-term dataset with imprecision based on the Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations (Rili-BAEK), in a medical laboratory operating 24/7, using internal quality control (IQC) data for four concentrations during a 10-year period; and (2) a detailed short-term dataset with imprecision assessed by hourly measurements of control materials. These datasets were used to calculate the MD cut-off (MDcut-off) as: [Formula: see text]  = 2  [Formula: see text], where SD is the standard deviation and k = 2 represents a confidence level of 95%.
RESULTS: The MDcut-off of ≤ 0.7 mmol/L at a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 7.0 mmol/L (MDcut-off 7.0) for the long-term and the short-term approaches were 0.44 and 0.40 mmol/L, respectively. The MDcut-off 7.0 from both approaches was therefore below the recommended value of 0.7 mmol/L. It was noted that the variability in performance within and between instruments can be covered by reporting the long-term MDcut-off 7.0 across all connected instruments. In this study, stable results for the MDcut-off 7.0 were obtained after 1 year.
CONCLUSION: Imprecision as measured by IQC data is remarkably stable over many years of operation. Current imprecision assessment usually focuses on only single instruments, whereas clinicians perceive the measurement as the result of the combined analytical performance of all instruments used for a certain assay. In the clinical setting, the MD may be a more useful measure of imprecision, and we suggest deriving the MDcut-off combined from all instruments and control cycles that are used in the patient care setting for a given analyte.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assay performance; Coefficient of variation; Imprecision; Internal quality control; Minimal difference; Rili-BAEK; Westgard rules

Year:  2019        PMID: 31845101      PMCID: PMC6965559          DOI: 10.1007/s13300-019-00740-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Ther            Impact factor:   2.945


  8 in total

Review 1.  Proposed guidelines for the internal quality control of analytical results in the medical laboratory.

Authors:  P H Petersen; C Ricós; D Stöckl; J C Libeer; H Baadenhuijsen; C Fraser; L Thienpont
Journal:  Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem       Date:  1996-12

2.  American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2017.

Authors:  Payal H Marathe; Helen X Gao; Kelly L Close
Journal:  J Diabetes       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.006

3.  Frequency of extreme differences and clinical performance of glucose concentration measurements judged from 21 000 duplicate measurements.

Authors:  Astrid Petersmann; Christina Wasner; Matthias Nauck; Anders Kallner
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 4.  A primer on patient-based quality control techniques.

Authors:  Tony Badrick; Mark Cervinski; Tze Ping Loh
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.281

5.  A multi-rule Shewhart chart for quality control in clinical chemistry.

Authors:  J O Westgard; P L Barry; M R Hunt; T Groth
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  New insight into the comparative power of quality-control rules that use control observations within a single analytical run.

Authors:  C A Parvin
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  International federation of clinical chemistry. Committee on standards. Expert panel on nomenclature and principles of quality control in clinical chemistry. IFCC document stage 2, draft 3; 1979-07 with a view to an IFCC recommendation. Quality control in clinical chemistry. Part 4. Internal quality control.

Authors:  J Büttner; R Broth; P M Broughton; R C Bowyer
Journal:  J Clin Chem Clin Biochem       Date:  1980-08

8.  Approved IFCC recommendation on reporting results for blood glucose (abbreviated).

Authors:  Paul D'Orazio; Robert W Burnett; Niels Fogh-Andersen; Ellis Jacobs; Katsuhiko Kuwa; Wolf R Külpmann; Lasse Larsson; Andrzej Lewenstam; Anton H J Maas; Gerhard Mager; Jerzy W Naskalski; Anthony O Okorodudu
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 8.327

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Disregarded Measurement Uncertainty Contributions and Their Magnitude in Measuring Plasma Glucose.

Authors:  Astrid Petersmann; Rainer Macdonald; Matthias Nauck
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-11-20
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.