Literature DB >> 33218279

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

Astrid Petersmann1,2, Rainer Macdonald3, Matthias Nauck1,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Each measurement is subject to measurement uncertainty (MU). Consequently, each measurement of plasma glucose concentration used for diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus (DM) is affected. Although concepts and methods of MU are well established in many fields of science and technology, they are presently only incompletely implemented by medical laboratories, neglecting MU of target values of internal quality control (IQC) materials.
METHODS: An empirical and practical approach for the estimation of MU based on the analysis of routine IQC using control samples with assigned target values is presented. Its feasibility is demonstrated exemplarily by analyzing IQC data from one year obtained for glucose employing the hexokinase method with IQC of two different concentrations.
RESULTS: Combined relative extended (k = 2) MU comprising bias, coefficient of variation (CV), and MU of the target values assigned to control materials were about 9% with a lower (~ 56 mg/dL; ~3.1 mmol/L) and 8% with a higher (~ 346 mg/dL; ~19.2 mmol/L) concentration sample, analyzing IQC of one year from three different devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of MU in this study is quite reliable due to the large number of IQC data from one year. The MU of the target values of the commercial control material in this study was considerably larger than other MU contributions, ie, standard deviation and bias. In the future, the contribution of MU of commercial IQC should be addressed more carefully and technologies to measure glucose should be geared toward smaller MU possible, as needed, especially for glucose concentration measurements in diagnosis and management of DM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  analytical measurements; bias; imprecision; metrological controls; quality control; uncertainty of measurement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33218279      PMCID: PMC8875054          DOI: 10.1177/1932296820966353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  10 in total

1.  Critique of the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement method of estimating and reporting uncertainty in diagnostic assays.

Authors:  Jan S Krouwer
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  Treatment of uncorrected measurement bias in uncertainty estimation for chemical measurements.

Authors:  Bertil Magnusson; Stephen L R Ellison
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 4.142

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.  Basics of estimating measurement uncertainty.

Authors:  Graham H White
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08

5.  Why do different EQA schemes have apparently different limits of acceptability?

Authors:  Bedrich Friedecky; Josef Kratochvila; Marek Budina
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2011-01-16       Impact factor: 3.694

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

Authors:  Sandra Keutmann; Stephanie Zylla; Mathilde Dahl; Nele Friedrich; Rüdiger Landgraf; Lutz Heinemann; Anders Kallner; Matthias Nauck; Astrid Petersmann
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.945

Review 7.  Definition, Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Astrid Petersmann; Dirk Müller-Wieland; Ulrich A Müller; Rüdiger Landgraf; Matthias Nauck; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Erwin Schleicher
Journal:  Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 2.949

8.  External quality assessment schemes for glucose measurements in Germany: factors for successful participation, analytical performance and medical impact.

Authors:  Andreas Bietenbeck; Wolf J Geilenkeuser; Frank Klawonn; Michael Spannagl; Matthias Nauck; Astrid Petersmann; Markus A Thaler; Christof Winter; Peter B Luppa
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 9.  2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Guidelines for Expressing the Uncertainty of Measurement Results Containing Uncorrected Bias.

Authors:  Steven D Phillips; Keith R Eberhardt; Brian Parry
Journal:  J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.