ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2025
Evaluation of measurement uncertainty results calculated by two different methods and total analytical error for ethanol testing.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The analytical performance metrics of ethanol testing are critically important due to their legal implications when presenting and interpreting results. Measurement uncertainty (MU) and total analytical error (TAE) are essential approaches for evaluating and improving the quality of measurement procedures. This study aimed to calculate MU and TAE values, which assess the reliability of ethanol test results from different perspectives, and to evaluate the impact of MU values, calculated using two different methods, on the legal threshold. Methods: MU values were calculated following the guidelines of Nordtest and ISO/TS 20914. TAE was determined using the formula TAE%=1.65×CV%+Bias%. External and internal quality data from ethanol testing conducted between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2024, were used for calculations. Results: The expanded MU values for ethanol testing were 13.95% according to the Nordtest Guide, 10.94% for low level and 9.59% for high level according to the ISO/TS 20914 Guide. The calculated TAE values were 12.59 for low levels, 11.47 for high levels, and 12.57 overall. MU and TAE values for ethanol testing in our laboratory remained within the allowable total error (±20%) according to CLIA 2024. Conclusions: We believe each laboratory should report ethanol test results and their respective MU values, particularly when evaluating results close to legal thresholds. Furthermore, we suggest that scientific committees standardise the method for calculating MU and define a target limit.
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.