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) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Thienpont, L. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Thienpont, L. M.

Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty—Why Bias Should Be Treated Separately

Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Gent University, Gent, Belgium

Address correspondence to the author at: Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Gent University, Harelbekestraat 72, B-9000 Gent, Belgium, Fax 32-9-264.81.98, E-mail linda.thienpont@ugent.be

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

To the Editor:

The concept of measurement uncertainty (u), as laid down in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) (1), is gaining more and more importance in the field of laboratory medicine. This concept does not include bias in the calculation of u, but instead requires it to be reported separately. Many are dissatisfied with that approach and try to "fix" GUM by treating bias as a variance and propagating it as such(2). I contend that the calculation of u should adhere to the original GUM . . . [Full Text of this Article]