Ehrmeyer S S, Laessig R H
Clin Chem. 1985 Aug;31(8):1352-4.
We compared the predictive value of the various criteria used for grading pH and blood-gas measurements in interlaboratory proficiency testing programs with performance as determined from actual intralaboratory quality-assurance data. The evaluation criteria were the two-standard-deviation interval (2 SDI) proposed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP); CAP's proposed fixed criteria; and the fixed criteria of the American Thoracic Society (ATS). These were compared with 95% confidence limits derived from the individual laboratories' actual intralaboratory data. We found that the CAP's most-stringent criterion (2 SDI) overestimated the number of outliers (unacceptable results) for PCO2 and PO2, whereas the proposed fixed limits underestimated them. For pH and PCO2 the ATS's limits, which are more stringent, more closely match the individual laboratory's actual performance as measured by conventional (mean +/- 2 SD) intralaboratory quality-assurance practices.
我们将实验室间能力验证计划中用于pH值和血气测量分级的各种标准的预测价值，与根据实验室内部实际质量保证数据确定的性能进行了比较。评估标准包括美国病理学家学会（CAP）提出的双标准差区间（2 SDI）；CAP提出的固定标准；以及美国胸科学会（ATS）的固定标准。将这些标准与从各个实验室的实际实验室内部数据得出的95%置信限进行了比较。我们发现，CAP最严格的标准（2 SDI）高估了PCO2和PO2的异常值（不可接受结果）数量，而提议的固定限值则低估了它们。对于pH值和PCO2，更严格的ATS限值与通过传统的（均值±2 SD）实验室内部质量保证实践测量的各个实验室的实际性能更接近。
