Eckfeldt J H, Copeland K R
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993 Apr;117(4):381-6.
Proficiency testing using stabilized control materials has been used for decades as a means of monitoring and improving performance in the clinical laboratory. Often, the commonly used proficiency testing materials exhibit "matrix effects" that cause them to behave differently from fresh human specimens in certain clinical analytic systems. Because proficiency testing is the primary method in which regulatory agencies have chosen to evaluate clinical laboratory performance, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has proposed guidelines for investigating the influence of matrix effects on their Survey results. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the feasibility, usefulness, and potential problems associated with this CAP Matrix Effect Analytical Protocol, in which fresh patient specimens and CAP proficiency specimens are analyzed simultaneously by a field method and a definitive, reference, or other comparative method. The optimal outcome would be that both the fresh human and CAP Survey specimens agree closely with the comparative method result. However, this was not always the case. Using several different analytic configurations, we were able to demonstrate matrix and calibration biases for several of the analytes investigated.
使用稳定化对照材料进行能力验证已被用于临床实验室监测和提高性能数十年。通常,常用的能力验证材料会表现出“基质效应”,导致它们在某些临床分析系统中的行为与新鲜人体标本不同。由于能力验证是监管机构选择评估临床实验室性能的主要方法,美国病理学家协会(CAP)提出了调查基质效应及其调查结果影响的指南。本研究的目的是确定与CAP基质效应分析方案相关的可行性、实用性和潜在问题,该方案通过现场方法和确定性、参考性或其他比较方法同时分析新鲜患者标本和CAP能力验证标本。最佳结果是新鲜人体标本和CAP调查标本都与比较方法结果密切一致。然而,情况并非总是如此。使用几种不同的分析配置,我们能够证明所研究的几种分析物存在基质和校准偏差。