ReviewBiochemia medica2021
Estimation of the measurement uncertainty and practical suggestion for the description of the metrological traceability in clinical laboratories.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Isotope-dilution-LC-MS/MS candidate reference measurement procedure for cefepime in human serum.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians request a large part of measurements of biological quantities that clinical laboratories perform for diagnostic, prognostic or diseases monitoring purposes. Thus, laboratories need to provide patient's results as reliable as possible. Metrological concepts like measurement uncertainty and metrological traceability allow to know the accuracy of these results and guarantee their comparability over time and space. Such is the importance of these two parameters that the estimation of measurement uncertainty and the knowledge of metrological traceability is required for clinical laboratories accredited by ISO 15189:2012. Despite there are many publications or guidelines to estimate the measurement uncertainty in clinical laboratories, it is not entirely clear what information and which formulae they should use to calculate it. On the other hand, unfortunately, there are a small number of clinical laboratories that know and describe the metrological traceability of their results, even though they are aware of the lack of comparability that currently exists for patient's results. Thus, to try to facilitate the task of clinical laboratories, this review aims to provide a proposal to estimate the measurement uncertainty. Also, different suggestions are shown to describe the metrological traceability. Measurement uncertainty estimation is partially based on the ISO/TS 20914:2019 guideline, and the metrological traceability described using the ISO 17511:2020. Different biological quantities routinely measured in clinical laboratories are used to exemplify the proposal and suggestions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.