The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 209-219

  Oosterhuis, Wytze P ^a   Bayat, Hassan ^b   Armbruster, David ^c   Coskun, Abdurrahman ^d   Freeman, Kathleen P ^e   Kallner, Anders ^f   Koch, David ^g   Mackenzie, Finlay ^h   Migliarino, Gabriel ⁱ   Orth, Matthias ^j   Sandberg, Sverre ^k   Sylte, Marit S ^l   Westgard, Sten ^m   Theodorsson, Elvar ⁿ  

^a Sittard Geleen Heerlen   (Netherlands)

^b Sina Medical Laboratory   (Iran)

^c ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United States)

^d ACIBADEM UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^e IDEXX LABORATORIES   (United Kingdom)

^f KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^g EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ Gmigliarino Consultants   (Argentina)

^j Vinzenz von Paul Kliniken gGmbH   (Germany)

^k HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^l UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^m Linköping University ^*  (Canada)

ⁿ LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

more..

Author keywords

measurement uncertainty; performance specification; quality control; total error

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL VARIATION; CALCULATION; CONSENSUS; ERROR METHOD; LABORATORY; MEASUREMENT; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; UNCERTAINTY; DELPHI STUDY; HUMAN; LABORATORY TECHNIQUE; MEDICAL ERROR; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

BIAS; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ERRORS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 85032967878     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-0341     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem 1974;20:825-33.
2. Westgard JO. Useful measures and models for analytical quality management in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:223-33.
3. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:833-5.
4. Kenny D, Fraser CG, Petersen PH, Kallner A. Consensus agreement. Scand J Clin Lab Inv 1999;59:585.
5. Oosterhuis WP. Gross overestimation of total allowable error based on biological variation. Clin Chem 2011;57:1334-6.
6. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. Assessing quality on the Sigma scale from proficiency testing and external quality assessment surveys. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1531-5.
7. Westgard SA. Utilizing global data to estimate analytical performance on the Sigma scale: a global comparative analysis of methods, instruments, and manufacturers through external quality assurance and proficiency testing programs. Clin Biochem 2016;49:699-707.
8. Westgard S. Quality Goals at the Crossroads: Growing, Going, or Gone? 2016. Available at: http://www. westgard. com/gonegoals-gone. htm. Accessed: 30 July 2017.
9. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. Quality control review: implementing a scientifically based quality control system. Ann Clin Biochem 2016;53(Pt 1):32-50.
10. Panteghini M, Sandberg S. Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: the match continues. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:195-6.
11. Oosterhuis WP, Theodorsson E. Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: revolution or evolution? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:235-9.
12. Kallner A. Is the combination of trueness and precision in one expression meaningful? On the use of total error and uncertainty in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1291-7.
13. Dalkey NC, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 1963;9:458-67.
14. JCGM. International vocabulary of metrology-basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM 3): Bureau International des Poids et Mesures; 2012. [3 edition] Available at: http://www. bipm. org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM-200-2012. pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2017.
15. JCGM. Evaluation of measurement data-guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008, GUM 1995 with minor corrections. Available at: http://www. bipm. org/utils/common/ documents/jcgm/JCGM-100-2008-E. pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2017. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008.
16. Mari L. The 'error approach' and the 'uncertainty approach': are they incompatible? Leiden: Lorentz Center, 2011.
17. Menditto A, Patriarca M, Magnusson B. Understanding the meaning of accuracy, trueness and precision. Accred Qual Assur 2007;12:45-7.
18. De Bievre P. On 'trueness control materials', better known under the multi-purpose term of 'Certified Reference Materials' (CRMs). Accredit Qual Assur 2010;15:71-2.
19. Vesper HW, Miller WG, Myers GL. Reference materials and commutability. Clin Biochem Rev 2007;28:139-47.
20. Greg Miller W, Myers GL, Lou Gantzer M, Kahn SE, Schonbrunner ER, Thienpont LM, et al. Roadmap for harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement procedures. Clin Chem 2011;57: 1108-17.
21. Westgard JO, Seehafer JJ, Barry PL. Allowable imprecision for laboratory tests based on clinical and analytical test outcome criteria. Clin Chem 1994;40:1909-14.
22. Cembrowski GS, Carey RN. Considerations for the implementation of clinically derived quality control procedures. Lab Med 1989;20:400-5.
23. Parvin CA. Quality-control (QC) performance measures and the QC planning process. Clin Chem 1997;43:602-7.
24. Ceriotti F, Fernandez-Calle P, Klee GG, Nordin G, Sandberg S, Streichert T, et al. Criteria for assigning laboratory measurands to models for analytical performance specifications defined in the 1st EFLM Strategic Conference. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:189-94.
25. Tonks DB. Quality control systems in clinical chemistry laboratories. Postgrad Med 1963;34:A58-70.
26. Stockl D, Baadenhuijsen H, Fraser CG, Libeer J-C, Petersen PH, Ricos C. Desirable routine analytical goals for quantities assayed in serum. Discussion paper from the members of the external quality assessment (EQA) working group A on analytical goals in laboratory medicine. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1995;33:157-69.
27. Fraser CG, Petersen PH, Libeer JC, Ricos C. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34(Pt 1):8-12.
28. Gowans EM, Peteresen PH, Blaabjerg O, Horder M. Analytical goals for the acceptance of common reference intervals for laboratories throughout a geographical area. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1988;48:757-64.
29. Fraser CG, Petersen PH. Quality goals in external quality assessment are best based on biology. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1993;53:8-9.
30. Fraser CG, Peterson PH. Desirable standards for laboratory tests if they are to fulfill medical needs. Clin Chem 1993;39:1447-5.
31. Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Desirable specifications for total error, imprecision, and bias, derived from intra-and inter-individual biologic variation. Available at: http://www. westgard. com/ biodatabase1. htm. Accessed: 30 July 2017.
32. Larsen ML, Fraser CG, Petersen PH. A comparison of analytical goals for haemoglobin A1c assays derived using different strategies. Ann Clin Biochem 1991;28(Pt 3):272-8.
33. Oosterhuis WP, Sandberg S. Proposal for the modification of the conventional model for establishing performance specifications. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:925-37.
34. Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Postma T. Quantity quotient reporting. Comparison of various models. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1921-6.
35. Petersen PH, Stockl D, Blaabjerg O, Pedersen B, Birkemose E, Thienpont L, et al. Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of a field method with reference method by use of difference plots. Clin Chem 1997;43:2039-46.
36. Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Gurr E, Peil B. Permissible limits for uncertainty of measurement in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1161-71.
37. Asberg A, Odsaeter IH, Carlsen SM, Mikkelsen G. Using the likelihood ratio to evaluate allowable total error-an example with glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c). Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1459-64.
38. Oddoze C, Lombard E, Portugal H. Stability study of 81 analytes in human whole blood, in serum and in plasma. Clin Biochem 2012;45:464-9.
39. McDonald R. Quality assessment of quantitative analytical results in laboratory medicine by root mean square of measurement deviation. J Lab Med 2006;30:111-7.
40. White GH, Farrance I, AACB Uncertainty of Measurement Working Group. Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: a laboratory implementation guide. Clin Biochem Rev 2004;25:S1-24.
41. Astles JR, Person NB, Armbruster DA, Pierson-Perry JF, Kondratovich MV, Scott MG, et al. CLSI-EP21, Evaluation of total analytical error for quantitative medical laboratory measurement procedures, 2nd ed. Wayne, NJ: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2016.
42. Petersen PH, Klee GG. Influence of analytical bias and imprecision on the number of false positive results using guideline-driven medical decision limits (Reprinted from Clinica Chimica Acta vol 430C, pg 1-8, 2014). Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:127-34.
43. Fraser CG, Petersen PH. Desirable standards for laboratory tests if they are to fulfill medical needs. Clin Chem 1993;39:1447-53; discussion 53-5.
44. Page CH, Vigoureux PE. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures 1875-1975. US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, USA, NBS Special Publication 420, May 1975, Available at: https://archive. org/details/ internationalbur 420page. Accessed: 27 July 2017.
45. Williams A. What can we learn from traceability in physical measurements? Accredit Qual Assur 2000;5:414-7.
46. Williams A. Traceability and uncertainty-a comparison of their application in chemical and physical measurement. Accredit Qual Assur 2001;6:73-5.
47. Mari L, Giordani A. Modeling measurement: error and uncertainty. In: Boumans M, Hon G, Petersen A, editors. Error and uncertainty in scientific practice. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014:79-96.
48. Giordani A, Mari L. Measurement, models, and uncertainty. Ieee T Instrum Meas 2012;61:2144-52.
49. Psillos S. Scientific realism: how science tracks truth. London: Routledge, 1999.
50. Giere RN. Explaining science: a cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
51. Giere RN. Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992:xxviii:508.
52. Giere RN. Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006:151.
53. Tal E. Old and new problems in philosophy of measurements. Philosophy Compass 2013;8:1159-73.
54. Tal E. Measurement in Science. 2015. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. Available at: http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2015/entries/measurement-science. Accessed: 30 July 2017.
55. Tal E. Measurement in science. In: Zalta EN, editor. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2015.
56. Kacker R, Jones AW. On use of Bayesian statistics to make the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement consistent. Metrologia 2003;40:235-48.
57. Vallverdu J. Bayesian versus frequentists. A philosophical debate on statistical reasoning. Heidelberg: Springer, 2016.
58. Sanogo M, Abatih E, SaeGerman C. Bayesian versus frequentist methods for estimating true prevalence of disease and diagnostic test performance. Vet J 2014;202:204-7.
59. Weise K, Woger W. A Bayesian theory of measurement uncertainty. Meas Sci Technol 1993;4:1-11.
60. Lira I. The GUM revision: the Bayesian view toward the expression of measurement uncertainty. Eur J Physics 2016;37:1-16.
61. Kyriazis GA. Contributions to the revision of the 'Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement'. J Phys Conf Ser 2015;575:1.
62. Bich W. How to revise the GUM? Accredit Qual Assur 2008;13:271-5.
63. ISO. ISO 15189:2012 Medical laboratories-requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Standardisation Organisation, 2012.
64. Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Streichert T. Optimizing the use of the "state-of-the-art" performance criteria. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:887-91.
65. Haeckel R, Wosniok W. A new concept to derive permissible limits for analytical imprecision and bias considering diagnostic requirements and technical state-of-the-art. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:623-35.
66. Farrance I, Frenkel R. Uncertainty of measurement: a review of the rules for calculating uncertainty components through functional relationships. Clin Biochem Rev 2012;33:49-75.
67. Farrance I, Frenkel R. Uncertainty in measurement: a review of monte carlo simulation using microsoft excel for the calculation of uncertainties through functional relationships, including uncertainties in empirically derived constants. Clin Biochem Rev 2014;35:37-61.
68. Norheim S. Computer support simplifying uncertainty estimation using patient samples. Linkoping: Linkoping University, 2008. Available at: http://liu. diva-portal. org/smash/record. jsf?pid=diva2:417298. Accessed: 30 July 2017.
69. Theodorsson E. Validation and verification of measurement methods in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis 2012;4:305-20.
70. Theodorsson E, Magnusson B, Leito I. Bias in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis 2014;6:2855-75.