|
|
||||||||
Clinical Chemistry, Vol 25, 2034-2037, Copyright © 1979 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry
LB Sheiner, LA Wheeler and JK Moore
The percentage of mislabeled specimens detected (true-positive rate) and the percentage of correctly labeled specimens misidentified (false- positive rate) were computed for three previously proposed delta check methods and two linear discriminant functions. The true-positive rate was computed from a set of pairs of specimens, each having one member replaced by a member from another pair chosen at random. The relationship between true-positive and false-positive rates was similar among the delta check methods tested, indicating equal performance for all of them over the range of false-positive rate of interest. At a practical false-positive operating rate of about 5%, delta check methods detect only about 50% of mislabeled specimens; even if the actual mislabeling rate is moderate (e.g., 1%), only abot 10% of specimens flagged a by a delta check will actually have been mislabeled.
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
![]() |
R.P. Channing Rodgers How Much Quality Control is Enough?: A Cost-effectiveness Model for Clinical laboratory Quality Control Procedures (Illustrated by Its Application to a Ligand-assay-based screening Program) Med Decis Making, August 1, 1987; 7(3): 156 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |