van Heerden Marli, George Jaya A, Khoza Siyabonga
National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Faculty of Health Sciences, Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Afr J Lab Med. 2022 Jun 22;11(1):1344. doi: 10.4102/ajlm.v11i1.1344. eCollection 2022.
Laboratories use quality control processes to monitor and evaluate analytical performance in terms of precision and bias. Sigma metrics provide an objective assessment of laboratory quality using the total allowable error as an additional parameter.
This study aimed to determine the sigma metrics of analytes when using different total allowable error guidelines.
A retrospective analysis was performed on 19 general chemistry analytes at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital in South Africa between January 2017 and December 2017. Sigma metrics were calculated on two identical analysers, using internal quality control data and total allowable error guidelines from the Ricos biological variation database and three alternative sources (the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment, and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine).
The sigma performance was similar on both analysers but varied based on the guideline used, with the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment guidelines resulting in the best sigma metrics (53% of analytes on one analyser and 46% on the other had acceptable sigma metrics) and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia guidelines being the most stringent (21% and 23%). Sodium and chloride performed poorly across all guidelines (sigma < 3). There were also month-to-month variations that may result in acceptable sigma despite poor performance during certain months.
The sigma varies greatly depending on the total allowable error, but could be a valuable tool to save time and decrease costs in high-volume laboratories. Sigma metrics calculations need to be standardised.
实验室采用质量控制流程来监测和评估分析性能的精密度和偏差。西格玛指标使用总允许误差作为附加参数,对实验室质量进行客观评估。
本研究旨在确定使用不同总允许误差指南时分析物的西格玛指标。
对南非约翰内斯堡夏洛特·马克塞克学术医院2017年1月至2017年12月期间的19种常规化学分析物进行回顾性分析。使用内部质量控制数据以及来自Ricos生物变异数据库和其他三个来源(澳大利亚皇家病理学家学院、临床实验室改进修正案和欧洲临床化学与检验医学联合会)的总允许误差指南,在两台相同的分析仪上计算西格玛指标。
两台分析仪的西格玛性能相似,但因所使用的指南而异,临床实验室改进修正案指南得出的西格玛指标最佳(一台分析仪上53%的分析物和另一台分析仪上46%的分析物具有可接受的西格玛指标),澳大利亚皇家病理学家学院指南最为严格(分别为21%和23%)。钠和氯在所有指南下表现不佳(西格玛<3)。还存在逐月变化,这可能导致尽管某些月份性能不佳,但西格玛仍可接受。
西格玛因总允许误差而异,但在高容量实验室中可能是节省时间和降低成本的宝贵工具。西格玛指标计算需要标准化。