Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35811754›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2022

The application of sigma metrics in the laboratory to assess quality control processes in South Africa.

Marli van Heerden, Jaya A George, Siyabonga Khoza

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marli van HeerdenNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-8903
Jaya A GeorgeNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8741-8746
Siyabonga KhozaNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8068-7460

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Laboratories use quality control processes to monitor and evaluate analytical performance in terms of precision and bias. Sigma metrics provide an objective assessment of laboratory quality using the total allowable error as an additional parameter. Objective: This study aimed to determine the sigma metrics of analytes when using different total allowable error guidelines. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 19 general chemistry analytes at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital in South Africa between January 2017 and December 2017. Sigma metrics were calculated on two identical analysers, using internal quality control data and total allowable error guidelines from the Ricos biological variation database and three alternative sources (the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment, and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine). Results: The sigma performance was similar on both analysers but varied based on the guideline used, with the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment guidelines resulting in the best sigma metrics (53% of analytes on one analyser and 46% on the other had acceptable sigma metrics) and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia guidelines being the most stringent (21% and 23%). Sodium and chloride performed poorly across all guidelines (sigma < 3). There were also month-to-month variations that may result in acceptable sigma despite poor performance during certain months. Conclusion: The sigma varies greatly depending on the total allowable error, but could be a valuable tool to save time and decrease costs in high-volume laboratories. Sigma metrics calculations need to be standardised.

Indexed as

chemical pathologyclinical chemistry testsdiagnostic errorslaboratoriesquality controlsigma metricsSix Sigma

Identifiers

PMID35811754
PMCPMC9257767

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.