ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2022
Periodic Comparability Verification and Within-Laboratory Harmonization of Clinical Chemistry Laboratory Results at a Large Healthcare Center With Multiple Instruments.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2022. 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.
- Numerical and Interpretive Comparability of Optical and Mechanical Coagulation Analyzers: A Zlog-Supported Method Comparison Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Laboratory Preparation for Digital Medicine in Healthcare 4.0: An Investigation Into the Awareness and Applications of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Comparability of Wantai Wan200+ Instrument with Routine Laboratory Assays for 21 Different Analytes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Laboratory Data Quality Evaluation in the Big Data Era.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResults from laboratories using multiple instruments should be standardized or harmonized and comparability-verified for consistent quality control. We developed a simple frequent comparability verification methodology applicable to large healthcare centers using multiple clinical chemistry instruments from different manufacturers.
methodsComparability of five clinical chemistry instruments (Beckman Coulter AU5800, Abbott Architect Ci16000, two Siemens Vista 1500, and Ortho Vitros 5600) was evaluated from 2015 to 2019 for 12 clinical chemistry measurements. Pooled residual patient samples were used for weekly verifications. Results from any instrument exceeding the allowable verification range versus the results from the comparative instrument (AU5800) were reported to clinicians after being multiplied by conversion factors that were determined via a linear regression equation obtained from simplified comparison.
resultsOver the five-year study period, 432 weekly inter-instrument comparability verification results were obtained. Approximately 58% of results were converted due to non-comparable verification. Expected average absolute percent bias and percentage of non-comparable results for non-converted and converted results after conversion action were much lower than those for data measured before conversion action. The inter-instrument CV for both non-converted and converted results after conversion action was much lower than that for measured data before conversion action for all analytes.
conclusionsWe maintained within-laboratory comparability of clinical chemistry tests from multiple instruments for five years using frequent low-labor periodic comparability verification methods from pooled residual sera. This methodology is applicable to large testing facilities using multiple instruments.
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.