Feasibility for aggregation of commutable external quality assessment results to evaluate metrological traceability and agreement among results

Objectives

External quality assessment (EQA) with commutable samples is used for assessing agreement of results for patients' samples. We investigated the feasibility to aggregate results from four different EQA schemes to determine the bias between different measurement procedures and a reference target value.

Methods

We aggregated EQA results for creatinine from programs that used commutable EQA material by calculating the relative difference between individual participant results and the reference target value for each sample. The means and standard errors of the means were calculated for the relative differences. Results were partitioned by methods, manufacturers and instrument platforms to evaluate the biases for the measurement procedures.

Results

Data aggregated for enzymatic methods had biases that varied from -8.2 to 3.8% among seven instrument platforms for creatinine at normal concentrations (61-85 μmol/L). EQA schemes differed in the evidence provided about the commutability of their samples, and in the amount of detail collected from participants regarding the measurement procedures which limited the ability to sub-divide aggregated data by instrument platforms and models.

Conclusions

EQA data could be aggregated from four different programs using different commutable samples to determine bias among different measurement procedures. Criteria for commutability for EQA samples as well as standardization of reporting the measurement methods, reagents, instrument platforms and models used by participants are needed to improve the ability to aggregate the results for optimal assessment of performance of measurement procedures. Aggregating data from a larger number of EQA schemes is feasible to assess trueness on a global scale.

Pre-analytical practices for routine coagulation tests in European laboratories. A collaborative study from the European Organisation for External Quality Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine (EQALM)

Background

Correct handling and storage of blood samples for coagulation tests are important to assure correct diagnosis and monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the pre-analytical practices for routine coagulation testing in European laboratories.

Methods

In 2013–2014, European laboratories were invited to fill in a questionnaire addressing pre-analytical requirements regarding tube fill volume, citrate concentration, sample stability, centrifugation and storage conditions for routine coagulation testing (activated partial thromboplastin time [APTT], prothrombin time in seconds [PT-sec] and as international normalised ratio [PT-INR] and fibrinogen).

Results

A total of 662 laboratories from 28 different countries responded. The recommended 3.2% (105–109 mmol/L) citrate tubes are used by 74% of the laboratories. Tube fill volumes ≥90% were required by 73%–76% of the laboratories, depending upon the coagulation test and tube size. The variation in centrifugation force and duration was large (median 2500 g [10- and 90-percentiles 1500 and 4000] and 10 min [5 and 15], respectively). Large variations were also seen in the accepted storage time for different tests and sample materials, for example, for citrated blood at room temperature the accepted storage time ranged from 0.5–72 h and 0.5–189 h for PT-INR and fibrinogen, respectively. If the storage time or the tube fill requirements are not fulfilled, 72% and 84% of the respondents, respectively, would reject the samples.

Conclusions

There was a large variation in pre-analytical practices for routine coagulation testing in European laboratories, especially for centrifugation conditions and storage time requirements.

Discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio Results between Instruments: A Model to Split the Variation into Subcomponents

BACKGROUND

Observed differences between results obtained from comparison of instruments used to measure international normalized ratio (INR) have been higher than expected from the imprecision of the instruments. In this study the variation of these differences was divided into subcomponents, and each of the subcomponents was estimated.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected at 4 different patient visits from each of 36 outpatients who were receiving warfarin treatment and were included in the study. INR was determined on 1 laboratory instrument (STA Compact®) and 3 point-of-care instruments (Simple Simon®PT, CoaguChek®XS, and INRatio™). All 4 INR instruments were compared in pairs. Linear regression was used to correct for systematic deviations. The remaining variation of the differences was subdivided into between-subject, within-subject, and analytical variation in an ANOVA nested design.

RESULTS

The mean difference between instruments varied between 1.0% and 14.3%. Between-subject variation of the differences (expressed as CV) varied between 3.3% and 7.4%, whereas within-subject variation of the differences was approximately 5% for all 6 comparisons. The analytical imprecision of the differences varied between 3.8% and 8.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in INR between instruments were subdivided into calibration differences, between- and within-subject variation, and analytical imprecision. The magnitude of each subcomponent was estimated. Within results for individual patients the difference in INR between 2 instruments varied over time. The reasons for the between- and within-subject variations of the differences can probably be ascribed to different patient-specific effects in the patient plasma. To minimize this variation in a monitoring situation, each site and patient should use results from only 1 type of instrument.