ArticleBiochemia medica2022
A practical approach example to measurement uncertainty: Evaluation of 26 immunoassay parameters.
Article in Biochemia medica, 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.
- Are accreditation standards fit for measurement uncertainty in clinical laboratories? An analysis of Saudi Arabia's accreditation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of measurement uncertainty results calculated by two different methods and total analytical error for ethanol testing.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Measurement uncertainty is a non-negative parameter that characterizes the distribution of all values appropriate to the measured size and is associated with the measured result. In this study, we aimed to compare the results with various suggestions and produce more qualified results by calculating the measurement uncertainties of the immunoassays like fertility hormones, drug concentration tests, cardiac markers, thyroid function tests and tumour markers. Materials and methods: Uncertainty calculation was made in accordance with the top-down approach according to Nordtest guide. The 12-month study of internal and external quality assessment results were used. The parameters of drug concentration tests were performed on the Abbott Architect c8000, other hormones/markers on the i2000 of the same brand. Results: Factors that increased the measurement uncertainty of a test were due to external quality control data. The calculations showed that 13 of 26 parameters satisfied quality requirements. The highest uncertainty value, with 28% belonged to cancer antigen 19-9 test. The lowest value was calculated for prolactin with 8.3%. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and phenytoin performed poorly in terms of measurement uncertainty, although internal and external quality control assessment results were considered favourable for both. Conclusion: It is recommended that the concept of measurement uncertainty, which plays an important role in the total quality performance of the laboratory, should be followed up by the clinical laboratory experts at certain time intervals and should be increased the awareness of clinicians about the subject.
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.