ArticleBiochemia medica2025
Implementation of new Westgard rules suggested by the Westgard Advisor software for five immunological parameters.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Pharmacies in Providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence: An Updated Review of Technologies, Regulation and Socioeconomic Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Application of sigma-based quality control rules for the efficiency of internal quality control.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Reply to ChristelliBiochemia medica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Knowledge and systematic evaluation of analytical errors is the task of internal analytical quality control management. The aim of this study was to assess whether the Westgard rules proposed by Bio-Rad's Westgard Advisor software are more efficient in the monitoring of analytical performance than those previously in use. Materials and methods: The study was carried out on the nephelometer Atellica NEPH630 (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). Five parameters were chosen: serum immunoglobulin A (IgA), alpha 1 - antitrypsin (AAT), prealbumin, lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) and ceruloplasmin. The study was divided into 4 phases (A, B, C, D): phase A - old rules used (1 Results: At the end of the study the coefficient of variation (CV%), bias (%) and sigma for IgA were 2.55%, - 1.09% and 5.33, respectively; for AAT 3.88, - 2.21 and 3.25; for prealbumin 3.99, - 0.14 and 2.95; for Lp(a) 8.02, - 0.34 and 3.81; for ceruloplasmin 2.48, - 3.65 and 3.49. Conclusions: By using newly suggested rejection rules, we did not observe an improvement in monitoring of analytical 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.