

Uncertainty of measurement results in laboratory medicine
https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-1025it.2022-7-69-74
Abstract
The issues of reliability of measurement results in laboratory diagnostics, on the basis of which medical decisions are made, are considered. For a correct diagnosis, especially if the measurement results are close to the reference values of the parameters being determined, it is necessary to evaluate the accuracy and/or uncertainty of the measurement results. Therefore, the document ISO/TS 20914:2019 “Medical laboratories – Practical guidance for the estimation of measurement uncertainty” was developed, which follows the GUM methodology, but at the same time sets out a practical approach to estimating uncertainty based on all information available in a laboratory. This article presents an example of estimating measurement uncertainty based on data available in a medical laboratory. Particular attention was paid to the assessment of measurement precision, type A uncertainty. The purpose of the study was to analyze data available for the laboratory and assess the compliance of the obtained measurement results with current requirements. Thanks to the implementation of the ISO/TS 20914:2019 in activities of medical laboratories, it is possible to evaluate the uncertainty of measurement results based on the data available in the laboratory, as well as to evaluate the factors that make maximum contribution to the measurement uncertainty.
About the Authors
A. G. ChunovkinaRussian Federation
Аnna G. Chunovkina
St. Petersburg
A. A. Tumilovich
Russian Federation
Anastasiya A. Tumilovich
St. Petersburg
A. V. Stepanov
Russian Federation
Aleksandr V. Stepanov
St. Petersburg
M. S. Vonsky
Russian Federation
Мaxim S. Vonsky
St. Petersburg
N. A. Kovyazina
Russian Federation
Nadezhda A. Kovyazina
St. Petersburg
N. A. Alkhutova
Russian Federation
Natalya A. Alkhutova
St. Petersburg
V. L. Emanuel
Russian Federation
Vladimir L. Emanuel
St. Petersburg
References
1. Theodorsson E., Magnusson B., Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2017, vol. 22, pр. 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-017-1275-7
2. Braga F., Panteghini M., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2020, vol. 58(9), no. 3, рр. 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1336
3. Callum G. Fraser, Biological Variation Data for setting Quality Specifi cations, available at: https://www.westgard.com/ guest12.htm (accessed 02.06.2022).
4. Braga F., Pasqualetti S., Aloisio E., Panteghini M., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2020, vol. 59, no. 2, рр. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0371
5. Ceriotti F., Fernandez-Calle P., Klee G. G., Nordin G., Sandberg S., Streichert T., Vives-Corrons J.-L., Panteghini M., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2017, vol. 55, no. 2, рр. 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0091
6. Sandberg S., Fraser F. G., Horvath A. R., Jansen R., Jones G., Oosterhuis W., et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2015, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 833–835. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0067
7. Braga F., Pasqualetti S., Panteghini M., Clinical Biochemistry, 2018, vol. 57, pp. 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.02.004
8. Donadio S., Morelle W., Pascual A., Romi-Lebrun R., Michalski J. C., Ronin C., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2005, vol. 43, рр. 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2005.091
9. Wide L., Eriksson K., Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2021, vol. 5, no. 4, рр. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab006
10. Zabczynska M., Kozlowska K., Pochec E., Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2018, no. 19, 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19092792
Review
For citations:
Chunovkina A.G., Tumilovich A.A., Stepanov A.V., Vonsky M.S., Kovyazina N.A., Alkhutova N.A., Emanuel V.L. Uncertainty of measurement results in laboratory medicine. Izmeritel`naya Tekhnika. 2022;(7):69-74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32446/0368-1025it.2022-7-69-74