Suppr超能文献

六西格玛在实际应用中:依据CLIA 2024指南评估其在多分析仪实验室中的实用性

Six Sigma in Action: Evaluating Its Practicality in a Multi-Analyzer Laboratory under CLIA 2024 Guidelines.

作者信息

Emre Humeyra Ozturk

机构信息

Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Istanbul Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye

出版信息

Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2025 May;55(3):416-425.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The stricter Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) 2024 guidelines introduced narrower Total Allowable Error (TEa) limits, posing challenges for clinical laboratories in maintaining analytical quality. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Six Sigma metrics in assessing the performance of routine biochemical tests using these updated criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the internal quality control (IQC) data for 22 biochemical analytes across four instruments in a high-throughput laboratory. Performance was assessed using Sigma metrics calculated based on the CLIA 88 and CLIA 2024 criteria, with classifications into poor (<3 Sigma), acceptable (3-6 Sigma), and excellent (>6 Sigma) categories. İnstrument-specific variability and control levels (normal and pathological) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Under the CLIA 2024 guidelines, only 22.16% of the analytes achieved excellent performance (>6 Sigma), compared to 49.43% under CLIA 88. No significant differences were observed between instruments, indicating consistent analytical performance across platforms. Normal control levels (Control Level 1) exhibited greater variability (median Sigma: 4.76, range: 1.19-13.34) compared to pathological controls (Control Level 2) (median Sigma: 4.72, range: 1.22-10.22), reinforcing the impact of control level differences on analytical precision. CRP, CK, and Bilirubin were the highest-performing tests, consistently maintaining high Sigma values above the acceptable threshold. In contrast, Albumin, Urea, and GGT exhibited the lowest Sigma performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition to stricter CLIA 2024 guidelines significantly affects the analytical performance of biochemical tests, highlighting vulnerabilities in routine laboratory operations. Adopting advanced automation, tailored QC protocols, and modern analytical tools is essential to enhance diagnostic precision and ensure compliance with evolving regulatory demands.

摘要

目的

更严格的2024年《临床实验室改进修正案》(CLIA)指南引入了更窄的总允许误差(TEa)限值,给临床实验室维持分析质量带来了挑战。本研究评估了六西格玛指标在使用这些更新标准评估常规生化检测性能方面的有效性。

方法

这项回顾性研究分析了高通量实验室中四台仪器上22种生化分析物的内部质量控制(IQC)数据。使用基于CLIA 88和CLIA 2024标准计算的西格玛指标评估性能,并分为差(<3西格玛)、可接受(3 - 6西格玛)和优秀(>6西格玛)类别。还分析了仪器特定的变异性和控制水平(正常和病理)。

结果

在CLIA 2024指南下,只有22.16%的分析物达到了优秀性能(>6西格玛),而在CLIA 88下这一比例为49.43%。仪器之间未观察到显著差异,表明各平台的分析性能一致。与病理对照(控制水平2)相比,正常控制水平(控制水平1)表现出更大的变异性(中位数西格玛:4.76,范围:1.19 - 13.34),而病理对照的中位数西格玛为4.72,范围为1.22 - 10.22,这强化了控制水平差异对分析精密度的影响。CRP、CK和胆红素是性能最高的检测项目,始终保持高于可接受阈值的高西格玛值。相比之下,白蛋白、尿素和γ - 谷氨酰转移酶(GGT)的西格玛性能最低。

结论

向更严格的CLIA 2024指南过渡显著影响了生化检测的分析性能,凸显了常规实验室操作中的薄弱环节。采用先进的自动化、定制的质量控制方案和现代分析工具对于提高诊断精度和确保符合不断变化的监管要求至关重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验