Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919008›Full record

ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2024

Quantitative Evaluation of the Real-World Harmonization Status of Laboratory Test Items Using External Quality Assessment Data.

Sollip Kim, Tae-Dong Jeong, Kyunghoon Lee, Jae-Woo Chung, Eun-Jung Cho, Seunghoo Lee, Sail Chun, Junghan Song, Won-Ki Min

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

9 authors.

Sollip KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0474-5897
Tae-Dong JeongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3873-3117
Kyunghoon LeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3154-0347
Jae-Woo ChungDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4867-9708
Eun-Jung ChoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwaseong, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1907-9639
Seunghoo LeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-9306
Sail ChunDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5792-973X
Junghan SongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0576-9938
Won-Ki MinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5158-2130

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In recent decades, the analytical quality of clinical laboratory results has substantially increased because of collaborative efforts. To effectively utilize laboratory results in applications, such as machine learning through big data, understanding the level of harmonization for each test would be beneficial. We aimed to develop a quantitative harmonization index that reflects the harmonization status of real-world laboratory tests. Methods: We collected 2021-2022 external quality assessment (EQA) results for eight tests (HbA1c, creatinine, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride, alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]). This EQA was conducted by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service, using commutable materials. The total analytical error of each test was determined according to the bias% and CV% within peer groups. The values were divided by the total allowable error from biological variation (minimum, desirable, and optimal) to establish a real-world harmonization index (RWHI) at each level (minimum, desirable, and optimal). Good harmonization was arbitrarily defined as an RWHI value ≤ 1 for the three levels. Results: Total cholesterol, triglyceride, and CEA had an optimal RWHI of ≤ 1, indicating an optimal harmonization level. Tests with a desirable harmonization level included HDL-cholesterol, AFP, and PSA. Creatinine had a minimum harmonization level, and HbA1c did not reach the minimum harmonization level. Conclusions: We developed a quantitative RWHI using regional EQA data. This index may help reflect the actual harmonization level of laboratory tests in the field.

Indexed as

CreatinineGlycated HemoglobinProstate-Specific AntigenTriglyceridesalpha-FetoproteinsCarcinoembryonic AntigenCholesterolCholesterol, HDLClinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Controlalpha-FetoproteinsCarcinoembryonic AntigenCholesterolCholesterol, HDLCreatinineGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenTriglyceridesDevelopmentExternal quality assessmentHarmonizationIndexLaboratory resultsStandardization

Identifiers

PMID38919008
PMCPMC11375196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.