Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 09/09/2023
Abstract Views: 894
Views pdf: 371
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v529i2.6519
Issue
Vol. 529 No. 2 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Đặng, T. N., Nguyễn, Đình Đoàn, Lưu, T. C., Phạm, T. Y. T., Nguyễn, T. L. C., & Hoàng, T. Y. (2023). ASSESSMENT OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY AND TOTAL ANALYTICAL ERROR OF SOME BIOCHEMITRY TESTS AT HANOI HEART HOSPITAL IN 2022. Vietnam Medical Journal, 529(2). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v529i2.6519

ASSESSMENT OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY AND TOTAL ANALYTICAL ERROR OF SOME BIOCHEMITRY TESTS AT HANOI HEART HOSPITAL IN 2022

Thị Nga Đặng1,, Đình Đoàn Nguyễn2, Thị Chính Lưu1, Thị Yến Thư Phạm1, Thị Linh Chi Nguyễn1, Thị Yến Hoàng2
1 HUPH
2 Hanoi Heart Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Quality assuranCe is essential aspeCt of any mediCal laboratories. The Um and TE are not only Compatible approaChes but aCtually both required for the goal of improVing quality. Objective: To eValuate the measurement unCertainty and total analysis error of some bioChemiCal tests at Hanoi Heart Hospital in 2022. Methods: Applied the top-down method to estimate the UnCertainty of measurement Um; Westgard’s equatiOn was used tO estimate TOtal anatyCal error TE for some bioChemitry tests. The Criteria for Um and TE are based on the total error allowable TEa aCCording to biologiCal Variation. Results: All test haVe Um greater than TE exCepet GluCose. Two tests with Um and TE did not meet the standard for TEa aCCording to biologiCal Variation are quantitatiVe test for Sodium and Chloride (but still meets the RiliBÄK standard – German). Conclusion: Um cOver mOre cOmpOnents that affect test’s results than TE. The Criteria for biologiCal Variation may be are too striCt for some tests inCluding eleCtrolytes.

Article Details

Keywords

unCertainty of measurement Um, total analytiCal error TE, bioChemistry tests.

References

1. Pereira P. ISO series update, Part 2 - ISO 15189:2012 MediCal laboratories - Requirements for quality and CompetenCe. Westgard QC. 2017.
2. Qin Y, Zhou R, and et al. UnCertainty eValuation in CliniCal Chemistry, immunoassay, hematology and Coagulation analytes using only external quality assessment data. Clin Chem Lab Med.

2018 Aug 28; 56( 9):1447-1457.
3. Karadağ C, Demirel N. Total AnalytiCal Error and Measurement UnCertainty for AnalytiCal PerformanCe EValuation and Determination of Gray Zones of GluCose CritiCal Value Limits. Lab Med. 2022 Sep 2.
4. ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008, UnCertainty of measurement-Part 3: Guide to the expression of unCertainty in measurement (GUM:1995, International organization for standardization (GeneVa, Switzerland).
5. Bal C, Serdar M and et al. CalCulation of measurement unCertainty of bioChemiCal parameters. Turkish Journal of BioChemistry-Turk Biyokimya Dergisi. 2014; 39(4).
6. Hens K, Berth M, Armbruster D, Westgard S. Sigma metriCs used to assess analytiCal quality of CliniCal Chemistry assays: importanCe of the allowable total error (TEa) target. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014 Jul; 52(7):973-80.
7. Oosterhuis WP. Gross oVerestimation of total allowable error based on biologiCal Variation. Clin Chem 2011; 57:1334-6
8. Ünal K. Total analytiCal error or measurement uncertainty?. Uluslararası KBUD KOngre LABEXPO 2019, Sakarya, Türkiye, 2 - 05 Ekim 2019.