Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia.
RCPA Quality Assurance Programs, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018 Nov 27;56(12):2010-2014. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0421.
The debate comparing the benefits of measurement uncertainty (uncertainty in measurement, MU) with total error (TE) for the assessment of laboratory performance continues. The summary recently provided in this journal by members of the Task and Finish Group on Total Error (TFG-TE) of the EFLM put the arguments into clear perspective. Even though there is generally strong support for TE in many laboratories, some of the arguments proposed for its on-going support require further comment. In a recent opinion which focused directly on the TFG-TE summary, several potentially confusing statements regarding ISO15189 and the Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) were again promulgated to promote TE methods for assessing uncertainty in laboratory measurement. In this opinion, we present an alternative view of the key issues and outline our views with regard to the relationship between ISO15189, uncertainty in measurement and the GUM.
关于评估实验室性能时,测量不确定度(不确定度的测量,MU)与总误差(TE)的优缺点的争论仍在继续。EFLM 总误差工作组(TFG-TE)成员最近在本刊上提供的总结将这些论点清晰地呈现出来。尽管在许多实验室中,通常对 TE 有很强的支持,但为了持续支持 TE 而提出的一些论点需要进一步的评论。在最近的一篇直接关注 TFG-TE 总结的意见中,再次发布了一些关于 ISO15189 和测量数据评估的潜在混淆声明 - 测量不确定度的表示指南(GUM),以促进用于评估实验室测量不确定度的 TE 方法。在本意见中,我们提出了对关键问题的另一种看法,并概述了我们对 ISO15189、测量不确定度和 GUM 之间关系的看法。