ArticleCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2022
Applicability of the long-term uncertainty in measurement (LTUM) method for analytical performance assessment in clinical cytometry laboratories.
Article in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Implementation of an Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assessment Information System for a Regional Medical Laboratory Center: Pilot Design and Implementation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Applicability of the long-term uncertainty in measurement (LTUM) method for analytical performance assessment in clinical cytometry laboratories.Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe estimation of uncertainty in measurement for quantitative analyses is an international obligation of the ISO15189 standard for laboratories. The most widespread method is the Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assessment (IQC + EQA).
methodsWe compared two methods to assess uncertainty in measurement for the quantification of the number of CD34+ stem cells and of the different lymphocyte subpopulations in blood samples: the IQC + EQA method and the Long-Term Uncertainty in Measurement (LTUM) method.
resultsWe focused on the CD3+/CD4+ T lymphocyte subpopulation for a target value of 350 CD3+/CD4+/μl. The range in terms of uncertainty in the measurement of 350 CD3+/CD4+ cells/μl with the IQC + EQA method was [292.8; 407.2]. With the LTUM method, the uncertainty was 19.1% of the measured value. This represented a range of [283.2; 416.9].
conclusionsThe relative uncertainty calculated with the LTUM method can be adapted to any level of the measured parameter. IQC and EQA calculate the absolute uncertainty and need a clustering of values at different levels. This clustering can lead to some approximations in the uncertainty in measurement determination, particularly around the cut-off values. Unlike previous reports, uncertainty values were higher when calculated with the LTUM than with the IQC + EQA method. However, LTUM might be more representative of the daily routine practice with patient samples.
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.