ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
A study of the moving rate of positive results for use in a patient-based real-time quality control program on a procalcitonin point-of-care testing analyzer.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A study of the moving rate of positive results for use in a patient-based real-time quality control program on a procalcitonin point-of-care testing analyzer.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo establish an applicable and highly sensitive patient-based real-time quality control (PBRTQC) program based on a data model constructed with patients' results of a procalcitonin point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzer.
methodsPatients' results were retrospectively collected within one year. The Excel software was used to establish quality control (QC) programs of the moving average (MA) and the moving rate of positive results (MR). A Monte Carlo simulation was used to introduce positive and negative biases between 0.01 and 1 ng/ml at random points of the testing data set. Different parameters were used to detect the biases, and the detection efficiency was expressed using the median number of patient samples affected until error detection (MNPed). After comparing the MNPeds of different programs, MA and MR programs with appropriate parameters were selected, and validation plots were generated using MNPeds and maximum number of the patient samples affected (MAX). β curves were generated using the power function of the programs, the performances were compared with that of the conventional QC program.
resultsNeither the conventional QC nor MA program was sensitive to small bias, While MR program can detect the minimum positive bias of 0.06 ng/ml and negative of 0.4 ng/ml at an average daily run size of 10 specimens, with FRs < 1.0%, βs < 1%.
conclusionThe MR program, which is more sensitive to small biases than conventional QC and MA programs, with low FR and β. As such, it can be used as a PBRTQC program with high performance.
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.