ArticleEJIFCC2025
Enhancing Laboratory Quality: A Comprehensive Sigma Metric Analysis for Diverse Biochemical Parameters.
Article in EJIFCC, 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.
- Evaluation of cytokine analytical performance and optimization of quality control strategies using the six sigma model: a multicenter study.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
Background: Ensuring quality in the analytical phase of clinical chemistry is paramount for accurate diagnosis and treatment. Sigma metrics offer a quantitative framework to assess and enhance laboratory performance. In this study, we intend to comprehensively assess diverse biochemical parameters using three different QC databases to determine their suitability and design a tailor-made QC plan based on this assessment. Methods: This is a retrospective study, from an NABL-accredited laboratory. The coefficient of variation (CV) % was obtained from the IQC results and the Bias % from Proficiency Testing (PT) results. The Sigma value was calculated using the TEa from three different biological variation databases (EFLM database, Westgard database, CLIA database). QGI was calculated for parameters with a Sigma value <3. Results: Around 28-33 parameters in different instruments showed a Sigma value <3 (poor performance). However, several parameters lack TEa values in the CLIA database, preventing their inclusion in assessments of acceptability. Conclusion: By integrating Sigma calculations with established TEa standards, this study helped in identifying areas needing improvement. This comprehensive assessment ensured the evaluation of the performance of diverse analytes, thereby ensuring higher accuracy and reliability in patient test results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41459165PMC12743343What 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.