Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 437–439 | Cite as

Biases in clinical trials performed for regulatory approval

Discussion Forum


Method comparisons are routinely performed in hospital laboratories as part of the regulatory approval process. These trials are often biased in several ways. There is often a conflict of interest bias because the hospital is paid for the trial by the manufacturer of the assay. Moreover, the trial itself is often conducted in a way that is different from routine use. The reagents selected for the trial cannot be randomly selected from all possible reagents since future reagents do not exist. Yet, future reagents often have new lots of raw materials and/or changed manufacturing procedures, which can affect assay trueness. User error is often minimized because the user chosen to perform the study receives more training then would be routinely provided. All of these factors can lead to better performance in the regulatory evaluation then performance seen after release for sale as shown by examples for glucose meters. The above biases are largely unavoidable. Steps are suggested to reduce the above biases.


Method comparison Clinical trial Bias Regulatory approval FDA 


  1. 1.
    ISO 15197:2003 (2003) In vitro diagnostic test systems—requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazg RL, Klaff LJ, Parkin CG (2013) Performance variability of seven commonly used self-monitoring of blood glucose systems: clinical considerations for patients and providers. J Diabetes Sci Technol 7:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freckmann G, Baumstark A, Jendrike N et al (2010) System accuracy evaluation of 27 blood glucose monitoring systems according to DIN EN ISO 15197. Diabetes Technol Ther 12:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klonoff DC, Lias C, Vigersky R et al (2014) The surveillance error grid. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8:658–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Krouwer ConsultingSherbornUSA

Personalised recommendations