HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: clinchem.2003.029454v1 50/9/1553    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Birch, L. Articles by Keer, J. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Birch, L. Articles by Keer, J. T. Related Collections Molecular Diagnostics and Genetics Laboratory Management General Clinical Chemistry

Generic Scheme for Independent Performance Assessment in the Molecular Biology Laboratory

¹ BioAnalytical Innovation Team, LGC Ltd, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex. TW11 0LY, United Kingdom.

^aAuthor for correspondence. Fax 44-20-8943-2767; e-mail jacquie.keer{at}lgc.co.uk.

Background: A variety of proficiency testing schemes are available for specific molecular analyses, but there is an acute need for more widely accessible schemes to assess and demonstrate general competence in DNA analysis.

Methods: Fifteen laboratories, including academic, clinical, and commercial organizations, were recruited into the prototype assessment exercise. A range of test samples were provided, and participants were required to extract DNA from simple matrices, perform PCR amplification, and score the samples as positive or negative by electrophoretic analysis of the amplification products. Results were requested as both gel images and a completed results table, and the performance of each laboratory was then scored on the submitted analytical results.

Results: Overall, laboratories performed the analysis successfully, with participants scoring a high proportion of the samples correctly in the two rounds of the scheme. However, not all of the laboratories were able to achieve amplification for all samples, and the performance of some laboratories was not consistent in the two rounds. In addition, several analytical problems were encountered at all stages of the process, including DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and correct recording of results.

Conclusions: The generic approach described here has enabled effective cross-sectoral benchmarking of laboratories from a variety of analytical sectors. The problems encountered by some participating laboratories highlight the need for quality control and checks at all stages of the process to ensure accuracy of results. A statistical analysis of the results (ANOVA) allowed meaningful comparison of the consistency and sensitivity achieved by laboratories, demonstrating that an effective balance was achieved between the level of data obtained from laboratories and the time expenditure required from participants.

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

				S. J. Patton, A. J. Wallace, and R. Elles Benchmark for Evaluating the Quality of DNA Sequencing: Proposal from an International External Quality Assessment Scheme Clin. Chem., April 1, 2006; 52(4): 728 - 736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Hietala and B. M. Crossley Armored RNA as Virus Surrogate in a Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assay Proficiency Panel J. Clin. Microbiol., January 1, 2006; 44(1): 67 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]