Mason M F
J Anal Toxicol. 1981 Sep-Oct;5(5):201-8. doi: 10.1093/jat/5.5.201.
The results of proficiency testing and performance monitoring of laboratories that undertake the identification and quantitation of drugs present in physiological specimens on a fee-for-service basis are examined. In spite of an accompanying history strongly suggesting the presence of one or more specific compounds in a given specimen, a surprising number of laboratories failed in the identification of the compound or false identification was encountered. Similarly, a disappointing number of the reported quantitative results were outside an arbitrarily assumed acceptable range of 85 to 115% of the various target (putative) values. The results reported by referee laboratories were also less uniform than expected. Considering the charges made to customers for such analyses, it is reasonable to expect a better quality of performance. Some comments on the possible means of achieving this will be made.
对那些以收费服务方式对生理样本中存在的药物进行鉴定和定量分析的实验室的能力验证和性能监测结果进行了检查。尽管有伴随的病史强烈提示某一特定样本中存在一种或多种特定化合物，但仍有数量惊人的实验室未能鉴定出该化合物，或者出现了错误鉴定的情况。同样，令人失望的是，报告的定量结果中有相当一部分超出了任意设定的各种目标（假定）值的85%至115%这一可接受范围。仲裁实验室报告的结果也不如预期那样一致。考虑到为此类分析向客户收取的费用，期望有更高质量的表现是合理的。将对实现这一目标的可能方法提出一些看法。
