Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225398›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2021

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys.

Cleo Keppens, Ed Schuuring, Elisabeth M C Dequeker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cleo KeppensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 block d, 1st floor, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4498-8386
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), (HPC EA10), Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3655-143X
Elisabeth M C DequekerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 block d, 1st floor, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. els.dequeker@kuleuven.be.

Funding

Amgen not applicablePfizer Oncology Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes assess the performance of predictive biomarker testing in lung and colorectal cancer and have previously demonstrated variable error rates. No information is currently available on the underlying causes of incorrect EQA results in the laboratories. Participants in EQA schemes by the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted to complete a survey if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases. Of the 791 surveys that were sent, 325 were completed including data from 185 unique laboratories on 514 incorrectly analyzed or failed cases. For the digital cases and immunohistochemistry, the majority of errors were interpretation-related. For fluorescence in situ hybridization, problems with the EQA materials were reported frequently. For variant analysis, the causes were mainly methodological for lung cancer but variable for colorectal cancer. Post-analytical (clerical and interpretation) errors were more likely detected after release of the EQA results compared to pre-analytical and analytical issues. Accredited laboratories encountered fewer reagent problems and more often responded to the survey. A recent change in test methodology resulted in method-related problems. Testing more samples annually introduced personnel errors and lead to a lower performance in future schemes. Participation to quality improvement projects is important to reduce deviating test results in laboratories, as the different error causes differently affect the test performance. EQA providers could benefit from requesting root cause analyses behind errors to offer even more tailored feedback, subschemes, and cases.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungColorectal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesHealth Care SurveysHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceLung NeoplasmsObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkersColorectal cancerExternal quality assessmentISO 15189Molecular pathologyNon-small-cell lung cancerQuality managementRoot cause analysis

Identifiers

PMID33225398
PMCPMC8099794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.