Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31424073›Full record

ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2019

Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in Blood Alcohol Analysis.

Jackeline Moral, Callan Hundl, Dayong Lee, Maddisen Neuman, Aimee Grimaldi, Maria Cuellar, Peter Stout

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The secret life of crime labs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  2. Interpol review of toxicology 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jackeline MoralHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.
Callan HundlHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.
Dayong LeeHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.
Maddisen NeumanHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.
Aimee GrimaldiHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.
Maria CuellarUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Peter StoutHouston Forensic Science Center, 500 Jefferson Street, 13th Floor, Houston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Declared proficiency tests are limited in their use for testing the performance of the entire system, because analysts are aware that they are being tested. A blind quality control (BQC) is intended to appear as a real case to the analyst to remove any intentional or subconscious bias. A BQC program allows a real-time assessment of the laboratory's policies and procedures and monitors reliability of casework. In September 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC) began a BQC program in blood alcohol analysis. Between September 2015 and July 2018, HFSC submitted 317 blind cases: 89 negative samples and 228 positive samples at five target concentrations (0.08, 0.15, 0.16, 0.20 and 0.25 g/100 mL; theoretical targets). These blood samples were analyzed by a headspace gas chromatograph interfaced with dual-flame ionization detectors (HS-GC-FID). All negative samples produced `no ethanol detected' results. The mean (range) of reported blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) for the aforementioned target concentrations was 0.075 (0.073-0.078), 0.144 (0.140-0.148), 0.157 (0.155-0.160), 0.195 (0.192-0.200) and 0.249 (0.242-0.258) g/100 mL, respectively. The average BAC percent differences from the target for the positive blind cases ranged from -0.4 to -6.3%, within our uncertainty of measurement (8.95-9.18%). The rate of alcohol evaporation/degradation was determined negligible. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to compare the % difference in BAC among five target concentrations, eight analysts, three HS-GC-FID instruments and two pipettes. The variables other than target concentrations showed no significant difference (P > 0.2). While the 0.08 g/100 mL target showed a significantly larger % difference than higher target concentrations (0.15-0.25 g/100 mL), the % differences among the higher targets were not concentration-dependent. Despite difficulties like gaining buy-in from stakeholders and mimicking evidence samples, the implementation of a BQC program has improved processes, shown methods are reliable and added confidence to staff's testimony in court.

Indexed as

Blood Alcohol ContentForensic ToxicologyQuality ControlSpecimen HandlingChromatography, GasHumansLinear ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBlood Alcohol Content

Identifiers

PMID31424073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.