Wytze P. Oosterhuis

Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

*Corresponding author: Sverre Sandberg, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen and Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Bergen, Norway, E-mail: sverre.sandberg@isf.uib.no Callum G. Fraser: Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK Andrea Rita Horvath: SEALS Department of Clinical Chemistry, Prince of Wales Hospital, Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Rob Jansen: Netherlands Foundation for Quality Assessment of Medical Laboratories (SKML), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Graham Jones: SydPath, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wytze Oosterhuis: Atrium-Orbis, Department of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, Heerlen, The Netherlands Per Hyltoft Petersen: Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Norway Heinz Schimmel: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Geel, Belgium Ken Sikaris: Sonic Healthcare and Melbourne University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Mauro Panteghini: Centre for Metrological Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (CIRME), University of Milan, Milan, Italy Consensus Statement

Postanalytical external quality assessment of urine albumin in primary health care: an international survey.

BACKGROUND Microalbuminuria (MA) is recognized as an important risk factor for cardiovascular and renal complications in diabetes. We sought to evaluate how screening for MA is conducted and how urine albumin (UA) results are interpreted in primary care internationally. METHODS General practitioners (GPs) received a case history-based questionnaire depicting a male type 2 diabetes patient in whom UA testing had not been performed. Questions were related to type of urine sample used for UA testing, need for a repeat test, whether UA testing was performed in the office laboratory, and what changes in UA results were considered clinically important [critical difference (CD)]. Participants received national benchmarking feedback reports. RESULTS We included 2078 GPs from 9 European countries. Spot urine samples were used most commonly for first time office-based testing, whereas timed collections were used to a larger extent for hospital-based repeat tests. Repeat tests were requested by 45%-77% of GPs if the first test was positive. Four different measurement units were used by 70% of participants in estimating clinically important changes in albumin values. Stated CDs varied considerably among GPs, with similar variations in each country. A median CD of 33% was considered clinically important for both improvement and deterioration in MA, corresponding to an achievable analytical imprecision of 14%, when UA is reported as an albumin/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSIONS Guidelines on diagnosing MA are followed only partially, and should be made more practicable, addressing issues such as type of samples, measurement units, and repeat tests.

Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation

Abstract Background: Correct information provided by guidelines may reduce laboratory test related errors during the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phase and increase the quality of laboratory results. Methods: Twelve clinical practice guidelines were reviewed regarding inclusion of important laboratory investigations. Based on the results and the authors’ experience, two checklists were developed: one comprehensive list including topics that authors of guidelines may consider and one consisting of minimal standards that should be covered for all laboratory tests recommended in clinical practice guidelines. The number of topics addressed by the guidelines was related to involvement of laboratory medicine specialists in the guideline development process. Results: The comprehensive list suggests 33 pre- analytical, 37 analytical and 10 post-analytical items. The mean percentage of topics dealt with by the guidelines was 33% (median 30%, range 17%–55%) and inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline committee significantly increased the number of topics addressed. Information about patient status, biological and analytical interferences and sample handling were scarce in most guidelines even if the inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the development process seemingly led to increased focus on, e.g., sample type, sample handling and analytical variation. Examples underlining the importance of including laboratory items are given. Conclusions: Inclusion of laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline development process may increase the focus on important laboratory related items even if this information is usually limited. Two checklists are suggested to help guideline developers to cover all important topics related to laboratory testing.

Accuracy of First and Second Generation Testosterone Assays and Improvement through Sample Extraction

To the Editor: The monitoring of antiandrogen treatment in patients with prostate cancer, investigation of hyperandrogenism in women, and evaluation of infants with ambiguous genitalia require accurate measurement of low testosterone concentrations. However, testosterone immunoassays have been shown to be inaccurate and often to overestimate testosterone concentrations in the low range (1). A working group of the Endocrine Society recently reviewed this concern and presented several recommendations to ensure the accuracy of future testosterone testing for improvement of diagnosis and treatment of disease (2). In the present study we evaluated the current situation with regard to the accuracy of 7 testosterone immunoassays, including 2 second generation assays, by comparison with isotope-dilution liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (ID-LC-MS/MS). In addition, we investigated the possible improvement of these immunoassays by diethyl ether sample extraction. Serum from 50 men, 50 women, and 16 children (age 4–16 years) was collected, divided into aliquots, and stored (−20 °C) until analysis. All investigations conformed to the ethics standards of the Helsinki Declaration. Total serum testosterone was measured singly …

The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests.

Abstract Background: Systematic reviews have gradually replaced single studies as the highest level of documented effectiveness of health care interventions. Systematic reviewing is a new scientific method, concerned with the development and application of methods for identifying relevant literature, analysing the material while increasing validity and precision, and presenting and discussing the results in a way that does justice to the research question and to the available evidence. The objective of this study was to review the systematic reviews in laboratory medicine, to evaluate the methods applied in these reviews and the applicability of guidelines of the Cochrane Methods Working Group on Screening and Diagnostic Tests, and identify areas for future research. Methods: All the systematic reviews in the field of clinical chemistry and laboratory haematology that could be identified in Medline, EMBASE and other literature databases up to December 1998, were evaluated. Results: We studied 23 reviews of diagnostic trials. Although all reviews share the same basic methodology, there was a wide variation in the methods applied. There was no consensus on the quality criteria for inclusion of primary studies. The results of the primary studies were heterogeneous in most cases. This was partly due to design flaws in the primary studies, but was also inherent in the diverse study designs in diagnostic trials. We observed differences in the analysis of the factors that cause heterogeneity of the results, and in the summary statistics used to pool the data from the primary studies. The additional diagnostic value of a test, after other test results are taken into consideration, was only addressed in one study. Conclusion: This overview of 23 reviews of diagnostic trials identifies areas in the methods of systematic reviewing where consensus is lacking, such as quality rating of primary studies, analysis of heterogeneity between primary studies and pooling of data. Guidelines need to be improved on these points.

Do Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Diabetes Mellitus Fulfill the Criteria of Evidence-Based Guideline Development?

BACKGROUND Although the methodological quality of therapeutic guidelines (GLs) has been criticized, little is known regarding the quality of GLs that make diagnostic recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the methodological quality of GLs providing diagnostic recommendations for managing diabetes mellitus (DM) and explored several reasons for differences in quality across these GLs. METHODS After systematic searches of published and electronic resources dated between 1999 and 2007, 26 DM GLs, published in English, were selected and scored for methodological quality using the AGREE Instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the source, scope, length, origin, and date and type of publication of GLs. Using a checklist, we collected laboratory-specific items within GLs thought to be important for interpretation of test results. RESULTS The 26 diagnostic GLs had significant shortcomings in methodological quality according to the AGREE criteria. GLs from agencies that had clear procedures for GL development, were longer than 50 pages, or were published in electronic databases were of higher quality. Diagnostic GLs contained more preanalytical or analytical information than combined (i.e., diagnostic and therapeutic) recommendations, but the overall quality was not significantly different. The quality of GLs did not show much improvement over the time period investigated. CONCLUSIONS The methodological shortcomings of diagnostic GLs in DM raise questions regarding the validity of recommendations in these documents that may affect their implementation in practice. Our results suggest the need for standardization of GL terminology and for higher-quality, systematically developed recommendations based on explicit guideline development and reporting standards in laboratory medicine.

Clinical impact of direct HDLc and LDLc method bias in hypertriglyceridemia. A simulation study of the EAS-EFLM Collaborative Project Group

BACKGROUND Despite international standardization programs for LDLc and HDLc measurements, results vary significantly with methods from different manufacturers. We aimed to simulate the impact of analytical error and hypertriglyceridemia on HDLc- and LDLc-based cardiovascular risk classification. METHODS From the Dutch National EQA-2012 external quality assessment of 200 clinical laboratories, we examined data from normotriglyceridemic (∼ 1 mmol/l) and hypertriglyceridemic (∼ 7 mmol/l) serum pools with lipid target values assigned by the Lipid Reference Laboratory in Rotterdam. HDLc and LDLc were measured using direct methods of Abbott, Beckman, Siemens, Roche, Olympus, or Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. We simulated risk reclassification using HDL- and sex-specific SCORE multipliers considering two fictitious moderate-risk patients with initial SCORE 4% (man) and 3% (woman). Classification into high-risk treatment groups (LDLc >2.50 mmol/l) was compared between calculated LDLc and direct LDLc methods. RESULTS Overall HDLc measurements in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed negative mean bias of -15%. HDL-multipliers falsely reclassified 70% of women and 43% of men to a high-risk (SCORE >5%) in hypertriglyceridemic serum (P < 0.0001 vs. normotriglyceridemic serum) with method-dependent risk reclassifications. Direct LDLc in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed positive mean bias with Abbott (+16%) and Beckman (+14%) and negative mean bias with Roche (-7%). In hypertriglyceridemic serum, 57% of direct LDLc measurements were above high-risk treatment goal (2.50 mmol/l) vs. 29% of direct LDLc (33% of calculated LDLc) in normotriglyceridemic sera. CONCLUSION LDLc and HDLc measurements are unreliable in severe hypertriglyceridemia, and should be applied with caution in SCORE risk classification and therapeutic strategies.

Proposal for the modification of the conventional model for establishing performance specifications

Abstract Appropriate quality of test results is fundamental to the work of the medical laboratory. How to define the level of quality needed is a question that has been subject to much debate. Quality specifications have been defined based on criteria derived from the clinical applicability, validity of reference limits and reference change values, state-of-the-art performance, and other criteria, depending on the clinical application or technical characteristics of the measurement. Quality specifications are often expressed as the total error allowable (TEA) – the total amount of error that is medically, administratively, or legally acceptable. Following the TEA concept, bias and imprecision are combined into one number representing the “maximum allowable” error in the result. The commonly accepted method for calculation of the allowable error based on biological variation might, however, have room for improvement. In the present paper, we discuss common theories on the determination of quality specifications. A model is presented that combines the state-of-the-art with biological variation for the calculation of performance specifications. The validity of reference limits and reference change values are central to this model. The model applies to almost any test if biological variation can be defined. A pragmatic method for the design of internal quality control is presented.

The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory

Abstract Error methods – compared with uncertainty methods – offer simpler, more intuitive and practical procedures for calculating measurement uncertainty and conducting quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, uncertainty methods are preferred in other fields of science as reflected by the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. When laboratory results are used for supporting medical diagnoses, the total uncertainty consists only partially of analytical variation. Biological variation, pre- and postanalytical variation all need to be included. Furthermore, all components of the measuring procedure need to be taken into account. Performance specifications for diagnostic tests should include the diagnostic uncertainty of the entire testing process. Uncertainty methods may be particularly useful for this purpose but have yet to show their strength in laboratory medicine. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the pros and cons of error and uncertainty methods as groundwork for future consensus on their use in practical performance specifications. Error and uncertainty methods are complementary when evaluating measurement data.

Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: revolution or evolution?

Abstract The first strategic EFLM conference “Defining analytical performance goals, 15 years after the Stockholm Conference” was held in the autumn of 2014 in Milan. It maintained the Stockholm 1999 hierarchy of performance goals but rearranged them and established five task and finish groups to work on topics related to analytical performance goals including one on the “total error” theory. Jim Westgard recently wrote a comprehensive overview of performance goals and of the total error theory critical of the results and intentions of the Milan 2014 conference. The “total error” theory originated by Jim Westgard and co-workers has a dominating influence on the theory and practice of clinical chemistry but is not accepted in other fields of metrology. The generally accepted uncertainty theory, however, suffers from complex mathematics and conceived impracticability in clinical chemistry. The pros and cons of the total error theory need to be debated, making way for methods that can incorporate all relevant causes of uncertainty when making medical diagnoses and monitoring treatment effects. This development should preferably proceed not as a revolution but as an evolution.