ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2025
Six SIGMA-based quality assessment of biochemical analytes: A comparative analysis of clinical laboratory improvement amendments 1988 and 2024 standards.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laboratories have a responsibility to produce accurate and reliable results to ensure patient safety and meet quality standards. Within the Six SIGMA quality management framework, various approaches may emerge depending on the total allowable error (TAE) limits defined by different standards. This study aimed to compare analyte SIGMA levels using CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 criteria, determine appropriate quality control procedures based on Westgard multirules, and identify potential sources of error using the Quality Goal Index. Methods: SIGMA values for 17 biochemical analytes were calculated based on internal and external quality control data using the formula (TEa - bias)/CV The Quality Goal Index (QGI) was determined using the formula bias/(1.5xCV). All analytes were evaluated at the Karabuk Public Health Laboratory between November 2024 and March 2025. Results: Amylase (Levels 1 and 2), total bilirubin (Level 1), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Levels 1 and 2), creatine kinase (Levels 1 and 2), and lactate dehydrogenase (Levels 1 and 2) demonstrated world-class SIGMA performance according to both CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 standards. However, a decline in SIGMA values was observed when calculated using the more stringent CLIA 2024 limits. Conclusions: The comparison of CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 standards demonstrated that stricter TEa limits can significantly impact the performance of SIGMA. While some analytes maintained world-class performance, others exhibited a notable decline, necessitating enhanced quality control measures. These findings emphasise the need for laboratories to periodically reassess test performance in light of evolving regulatory standards to ensure continued analytical reliability and patient safety.
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.