ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty in Clinical Chemistry and its Comparison With Analytical Performance Specifications.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are accreditation standards fit for measurement uncertainty in clinical laboratories? An analysis of Saudi Arabia's accreditation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction To evaluate the variability in values reported by a clinical laboratory, it is important to assess the measurement uncertainty (MU). Furthermore, verifying that the estimated MU aligns with relevant analytical performance specifications (APS) is essential. Previous research has indicated variability in how laboratories estimate and apply MU, with some failing to meet APS, potentially affecting clinical decision-making. Additionally, factors such as differences in instrumentation, reagent quality, and calibration protocols may contribute to regional variations in MU, emphasizing the need for a systematic evaluation. This study aimed to determine the MU of 31 measurands and compare it with the APS available in the literature to assess whether our measuring systems can meet these APS. Methods The study was conducted in the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, India. The measuring systems in our laboratory are Beckman Coulter DxC 700 AU (Beckman Coulter, Inc., Brea, California, United States), Beckman Coulter UniCel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter, Inc.,), and bioMérieux VIDAS (bioMérieux SA, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). The 'top-down' approach which uses internal quality control data and calibrator information was used for the estimation of MU. The formula used was:
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.