Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Uncertainty of Measurement for Traceability of Test Results and Setting up of own Quality Goal for Methods having Lower Stability- A Tertiary Care Hospital study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncertainty of measurement (UM) provides a quantitative estimate for traceability of test results. The Nordtest guide was applied for calculating UM of 26 analytes. For this, internal and external quality control data from July 2019 to April 2020 was used. UM of test results were compared to %TEa values of CLIA '2019, RiliBÄK, and Ricos. It was observed that UM for all analytes were below %TEa values of RiliBÄK. UM value of Albumin, Calcium and Sodium could not meet CLIA '2019 and Ricos guidelines. For results of Albumin, Calcium and Sodium to be traceable, more frequent quality control protocols resulted in decrease in bias. Quality goals were set for these three parameters. This helped in reduction of quality control cycles and optimum utilization of resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Report of the review of NHS pathology services in England. An independent review for the Department of Health. London: Department of Health, 2006:6.

  2. Uncertainties in Measurements Chemistry-LibreTexts. https://chem.libretexts.org. Last updated May5, 2020.

  3. Bishop ML, Fody EP, Schoeff LE. Clinical chemistry. Principles, techniques, correlations. 7th edition .Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

  4. Ellison S, Williams A. Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement. 3rd edition. London: EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4;2012. ISBN 978–0–948926–30–3.

  5. Magnusson B, Ossowicki H, Rienitz O, Theodorsson E. Routine internal- and external-quality control data in clinical laboratories for estimating measurement and diagnostic uncertainty using GUM principles. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2012;72(3):212–20. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2011.649015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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;25:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. JCGM 100:2008, Evaluation of Measurement Data - Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), Available online www.bipm.org, Accessed date: 2 October 2017.

  8. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189. Medical laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: ISO, 2012.

  9. Farrance I, Badrick T, Sikaris KA. Uncertainty in measurement and total error—are they so incompatible? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(8):1309–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0314.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Australian Standard AS ISO/IEC 17025–1999. General Requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Strathfield, NSW 2135, Australia: Standards Australia International; 1999.

  11. NABL 112: Specific Criteria for Accreditation of Medical Laboratories : Issue 04. Amend 2019 26 Apr.

  12. Rishniw M, Pion PD, Maher T. The quality of veterinary in-clinic and reference laboratory biochemical testing. Vet Clin Pathol. 2012;41(1):92–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-165X.2011.00386.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Magnusson B, Näykki T, Hovind H, Krysell M. Nordtest technical report 537—handbook for the calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories. 3rd ed. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Innovation; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Magnusson B, Näykki, Hovind H, M. Krysell, E. Sahlin. Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories Nordtest Report TR 537. 4th ed. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Innovation; 2011. Available from www.Nordtest.info. Accessed 4 November 2017.

  15. Leito I, Helm I, Jalukse L. Using MOOCs for teaching analytical chemistry: experience at University of Tartu. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015;2015(407):1277–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-014-8399-yissuedateFebruary2015publisheddate11January.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fraser CG. Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington DC: AACC Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ricós C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1999;59(7):491–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365519950185229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. RiliBÄK (Richtlinien der Bundesärztekammer). Guidelines of the German medical association for the quality assurance of laboratory medical examinations. Available at: http://www.westgard.com/rilibak.htm. Accessed October 30th, 2017.

  19. JCGM. Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Paris: Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology; 2008.JCGM100:2008, GUM 1995 with minor corrections. Available at: http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2016.

  20. JCGM 200:2012(E/F). International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM 3). 3rd edition. 2012. Available at: http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2016.

  21. Martinello F, Snoj N, Skitek M, Jerin A. The top-down approach to measurement uncertainty: which formula should we use in laboratory medicine? Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2020;30(2):020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ricos C, Perich C, Minchinela J, Álvarez V, Simón M, Biosca C, et al. Application of biological variation: a review. Biochem Med. 2009;19(3):250–9. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2009.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kütükçü A, Özçelik F, Yekrek MM, Kaçtaş S, Çıracı MZ, Sertoğlu E et.al. The Importance of Single or Combined Use of Measurement Uncertainty and the Reference Change Value in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Biochemic Hamidiye Med J 2020;1(1):7-16

  24. Zhou YI, Xu F, Chen SF, Xia J. Quality specifications of routine clinical chemistry methods based on sigma metrics in performance evaluation. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32:e22284. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bal C, Serdar MA, Gungor OT, Celik HT, Abuşoğlu S, Uğuz N, et al. Calculation of measurement uncertainty of biochemical parameters. Turk J Biochem. 2014;39:538–43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sikaris K. Analytical quality—What should we be aiming for? Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29(Suppl 1):S5–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhou B, Wu Y, He H, Li C, Tan L, Cao Y. Practical application of Six Sigma management in analytical biochemistry processes in clinical settings. J Clin Lab Anal. 2020;34:e23126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Afrifa J, Gyekye SA, Owiredu WK, Ephraim RK, Essien-Baidoo S, Amoah S, et al. Application of sigma metrics for the assessment of quality control in clinical chemistry laboratory in Ghana: a pilot study. Niger Med J. 2015;56:54–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0300-1652.149172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No requirement of funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), Room no. 411, Academic Block, GIPMER, JLN Marg, New Delhi, 110002, India

    Ranjna Chawla

  2. Department of Biochemistry, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), Room no. 414, Academic Block, GIPMER, JLN Marg, New Delhi, 110002, India

    Manju Subberwal

  3. Department of Biochemistry, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), Room no. 421, Academic Block, GIPMER, JLN Marg, New Delhi, 110002, India

    Ankush Singhal

Authors
  1. Ranjna Chawla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manju Subberwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ankush Singhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ranjna Chawla.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chawla, R., Subberwal, M. & Singhal, A. Use of Uncertainty of Measurement for Traceability of Test Results and Setting up of own Quality Goal for Methods having Lower Stability- A Tertiary Care Hospital study. Ind J Clin Biochem 37, 458–465 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-021-01016-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-021-01016-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation