Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38596685›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024

External quality assurance program for diagnostic complement laboratories: evaluation of the results of the past seven years.

Michael Kirschfink, Ashley Frazer-Abel, Emese Balogh, Sabine Goseberg, Nathalie Weiss, Zoltán Prohászka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael KirschfinkInstitute of Immunology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ashley Frazer-AbelExseraBioLabs, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States.
Emese BaloghDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Sabine GosebergInstand eV, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Nathalie WeissInstand eV, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Zoltán ProhászkaInstand eV, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The complement external quality assurance (EQA) program was first organized in 2010 by a group of researchers working in diagnostic complement laboratories. Starting in 2016, INSTAND e.V., a German, non-profit interdisciplinary scientific medical society dedicated to providing expert EQA programs for medical laboratories, started organizing the EQAs for complement diagnostic laboratories together with the same group of experienced scientists and doctors who also work as EQA experts. The aim of the current work is to provide descriptive analysis of the past seven years' complement EQA results and evaluate timeline changes in proficiency testing. Methods: Each year, in March and October, blinded samples (normal, pathological) were sent to the participating diagnostic laboratories, where complement parameters were evaluated exactly as in daily routine samples. Since no reference method/target values exist for these parameters, and participants used different units for measurement, the reported results were compared to the stable mean (Algorithm A) of the participants using the same method/measurement units. A reported result was qualified as "passed" if it fell into the 30-50% evaluation/target range around the mean of reported results (depending on the given parameter). Results: While the number of participating laboratories has increased in the past years (from around 120 to 347), the number of complement laboratories providing multiple determinations remained mostly unchanged (around 30 worldwide). C3, C4, C1-inhibitor antigen and activity determinations provided the best proficiency results, with >90% passing quotas in the past years, independent of the applied method. Determination of the functional activity of the three activation pathways was good in general, but results showed large variance, especially with the pathological samples. Complement factor C1q and regulators FH and FI are determined by only a few laboratories, with variable outcomes (in general in the 85-90% pass range). Activation products sC5b-9 and Bb were determined in 30 and 10 laboratories, respectively, with typical passing quotas in the 70-90% range, without a clear tendency over the past years. Conclusion: With these accumulated data from the past seven years, it is now possible to assess sample-, method-, and evaluation related aspects to further improve proficiency testing and protocolize diagnostic complement determinations.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesHumansautoantibodyC3 nephritic factorcomplement activation productscomplement pathwaysexternal quality assessment schemesfunctional analysisproficiency testing

Identifiers

PMID38596685
PMCPMC11002221

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.