Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 35: 284-288, 1989;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Linnet, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Linnet, K.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 35, 284-288, Copyright © 1989 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Choosing quality-control systems to detect maximum clinically allowable analytical errors

K Linnet
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Critical systematic and random analytical errors for 17 common clinical chemical components were estimated from published values for analytical imprecision, biological variation, and "medically important changes." Appropriate quality-control systems for these analytes are discussed on the basis of power considerations. The simple rule 1(3)s, with one control per run, is minimally sufficient for the analytes (about one quarter of those considered here) for which the magnitude of critical error is at least 3 analytical standard deviations. The more powerful rule 1(2)s, with one control per run, is the minimal requirement for analytes for which critical errors are about 2 analytical standard deviations; these are about half the remaining analytes. Greater power values are achieved by using multiple rules based on several controls per run. In general, this study does not support the view put forward by some authors that the quality-control rules in use today are too restrictive.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
K. Linnet
Necessary Sample Size for Method Comparison Studies Based on Regression Analysis
Clin. Chem., June 1, 1999; 45(6): 882 - 894.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. Dechert and K. E. Case
Multivariate approach to quality control in clinical chemistry
Clin. Chem., September 1, 1998; 44(9): 1959 - 1963.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. O. Westgard and B. Stein
Automated Selection of Statistical Quality-Control Procedures to Assure Meeting Clinical or Analytical Quality Requirements
Clin. Chem., February 1, 1997; 43(2): 400 - 403.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.