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


     

Clinical Chemistry 48: 919-927, 2002;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krouwer, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krouwer, J. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
(Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48:919-927.)
© 2002 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Setting Performance Goals and Evaluating Total Analytical Error for Diagnostic Assays

Jan S. Krouwer1

1 Krouwer Consulting, 26 Parks Dr., Sherborn, MA 01770. Fax 508-647-9380; e-mail jan.krouwer{at}attbi.com.

Background: Total analytical error has been a useful metric both to assess laboratory assay quality and to set goals. It is often estimated by combining imprecision (SD) and average bias in the equation: total analytical error = bias + 1.65 x imprecision. This indirect estimation model (referred to as the simple combination model) leads to different estimates of total analytical error than that of a direct estimation method (referred to as the distribution-of-differences method) or of simulation.

Methods: A review of the literature was undertaken to reconcile the different estimation approaches.

Results: The simple combination model can underestimate total analytical error by neglecting random interference bias and by not properly treating other error sources such as linear drift and outliers. A simulation method to estimate total analytical error is outlined, based on the estimation and combination of total analytical error source distributions. Goals for each total analytical error source can be established by allocation of the total analytical error goal. Typically, the allocation is cost-based and uses the probability of combinations of error sources. The distribution-of-differences method, simple combination model, and simulation method to evaluate total analytical error are compared. Outlier results can profoundly influence quality, but their rates are seldom reported.

Conclusions: Total analytical error should be estimated either directly by the distribution-of-differences method or by simulation. A systems engineering approach that uses allocation of the total analytical error goal into error source goals provides a cost-effective approach to meeting total analytical error. Because outliers can cause serious laboratory error, the inclusion of outlier rate estimates from large studies (e.g., those conducted by manufacturers) would be helpful in assessing assay quality.




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


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. S. Krouwer
Critique of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Method of Estimating and Reporting Uncertainty in Diagnostic Assays
Clin. Chem., November 1, 2003; 49(11): 1818 - 1821.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.