The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

Impact of analytical imprecision and bias on patient classification.

OBJECTIVES: An increase in analytical imprecision and/or the introduction of bias can affect the interpretation of quantitative laboratory results. In this study, we explore the impact of varying assay imprecision and bias introduction on the classification of patients based on fixed thresholds. METHODS: Simple spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel) were constructed to simulate conditions of assay deterioration, expressed as coefficient of variation and bias (in percentages). The impact on patient classification was explored based on fixed interpretative limits. A combined matrix of imprecision and bias of 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% (tool 1) as well as 0%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% (tool 2) was simulated, respectively. The percentage of patients who were reclassified following the addition of simulated imprecision and bias was summarized and presented in tables and graphs. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who were reclassified increased with increasing/decreasing magnitude of imprecision and bias. The impact of imprecision lessens with increasing bias such that at high biases, the bias becomes the dominant cause for reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: The spreadsheet tools, available as Supplemental Material, allow laboratories to visualize the impact of additional analytical imprecision and bias on the classification of their patients when applied to locally extracted historical results.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance Characteristics (LEAP) checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance Characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript.The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

Delta checks.

Delta check is an electronic error detection tool. It compares the difference in sequential results within a patient against a predefined limit, and when exceeded, the delta check rule is considered triggered. The patient results should be withheld for review and troubleshooting before releasing to the clinical team for patient management. Delta check was initially developed as a tool to detect wrong-blood-in-tube (sample misidentification) errors. It is now applied to detect errors more broadly within the total testing process. Recent advancements in the theoretical understanding of delta check has allowed for more precise application of this tool to achieve the desired clinical performance and operational set up. In this Chapter, we review the different pre-implementation considerations, the foundation concepts of delta check, the process of setting up key delta check parameters, performance verification and troubleshooting of a delta check flag.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy - Diagnosis and management: A consensus statement of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ): Executive summary.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is a pregnancy liver disease, characterised by pruritus and increased total serum bile acids (TSBA), Australian incidence 0.6-0.7%. ICP is diagnosed by non-fasting TSBA ≥19 µmol/L in a pregnant woman with pruritus without rash without a known pre-existing liver disorder. Peak TSBA ≥40 and ≥100 µmol/L identify severe and very severe disease respectively, associated with spontaneous preterm birth when severe, and with stillbirth, when very severe. Benefit-vs-risk for iatrogenic preterm birth in ICP remains uncertain. Ursodeoxycholic acid remains the best pharmacotherapy preterm, improving perinatal outcome and reducing pruritus, although it has not been shown to reduce stillbirth.

Advances in internal quality control.

Quality control practices in the modern laboratory are the result of significant advances over the many years of the profession. Major advance in conventional internal quality control has undergone a philosophical shift from a focus solely on the statistical assessment of the probability of error identification to more recent thinking on the capability of the measurement procedure (e.g. sigma metrics), and most recently, the risk of harm to the patient (the probability of patient results being affected by an error or the number of patient results with unacceptable analytical quality). Nonetheless, conventional internal quality control strategies still face significant limitations, such as the lack of (proven) commutability of the material with patient samples, the frequency of episodic testing, and the impact of operational and financial costs, that cannot be overcome by statistical advances. In contrast, patient-based quality control has seen significant developments including algorithms that improve the detection of specific errors, parameter optimization approaches, systematic validation protocols, and advanced algorithms that require very low numbers of patient results while retaining sensitive error detection. Patient-based quality control will continue to improve with the development of new algorithms that reduce biological noise and improve analytical error detection. Patient-based quality control provides continuous and commutable information about the measurement procedure that cannot be easily replicated by conventional internal quality control. Most importantly, the use of patient-based quality control helps laboratories to improve their appreciation of the clinical impact of the laboratory results produced, bringing them closer to the patients.Laboratories are encouraged to implement patient-based quality control processes to overcome the limitations of conventional internal quality control practices. Regulatory changes to recognize the capability of patient-based quality approaches, as well as laboratory informatics advances, are required for this tool to be adopted more widely.

Functional Reference Limits: Describing Physiological Relationships and Determination of Physiological Limits for Enhanced Interpretation of Laboratory Results.

Functional reference limits describe key changes in the physiological relationship between a pair of physiologically related components. Statistically, this can be represented by a significant change in the curvature of a mathematical function or curve (e.g., an observed plateau). The point at which the statistical relationship changes significantly is the point of curvature inflection and can be mathematically modeled from the relationship between the interrelated biomarkers. Conceptually, they reside between reference intervals, which describe the statistical boundaries of a single biomarker within the reference population, and clinical decision limits that are often linked to the risk of morbidity or mortality and set as thresholds. Functional reference limits provide important physiological and pathophysiological insights that can aid laboratory result interpretation. Laboratory professionals are in a unique position to harness data from laboratory information systems to derive clinically relevant values. Increasing research on and reporting of functional reference limits in the literature will enhance their contribution to laboratory medicine and widen the evidence base used in clinical decision limits, which are currently almost exclusively contributed to by clinical trials. Their inclusion in laboratory reports will enhance the intellectual value of laboratory professionals in clinical care beyond the statistical boundaries of a healthy reference population and pave the way to them being considered in shaping clinical decision limits. This review provides an overview of the concepts related to functional reference limits, clinical examples of their use, and the impetus to include them in laboratory reports.

Between and within calibration variation: implications for internal quality control rules.

The variability between calibrations can be larger than the within calibration variation for some measurement procedures, that is a large CVbetween:CVwithin ratio. In this study, we examined the false rejection rate and probability of bias detection of quality control (QC) rules at varying calibration CVbetween:CVwithin ratios. Historical QC data for six representative routine clinical chemistry serum measurement procedures (calcium, creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase, thyrotrophin, prostate specific antigen and gentamicin) were extracted to derive the CVbetween:CVwithin ratios using analysis of variance. Additionally, the false rejection rate and probability of bias detection of three 'Westgard' QC rules (2:2S, 4:1S, 10X) at varying CVbetween:CVwithin ratios (0.1-10), magnitudes of bias, and QC events per calibration (5-80) were examined through simulation modelling. The CVbetween:CVwithin ratios for the six routine measurement procedures ranged from 1.1 to 34.5. With ratios >3, false rejection rates were generally above 10%. Similarly for QC rules involving a greater number of consecutive results, false rejection rates increased with increasing ratios, while all rules achieved maximum bias detection. Laboratories should avoid the 2:2S, 4:1S and 10X QC rules when calibration CVbetween:CVwithin ratios are elevated, particularly for those measurement procedures with a higher number of QC events per calibration.

Difference- and regression-based approaches for detection of bias.

OBJECTIVE: This simulation study was undertaken to assess the statistical performance of six commonly used rejection criteria for bias detection. METHODS: The false rejection rate (i.e. rejection in the absence of simulated bias) and the probability of bias detection were assessed for the following: difference in measurements for individual sample pair, the mean of the paired differences, t-statistics (paired t-test), slope < 0.9 or > 1.1, intercept > 50% of the lower limit of measurement range, and coefficient of determination (R2) > 0.95. The linear regressions evaluated were ordinary least squares, weighted least squares and Passing-Bablok regressions. A bias detection rate of < 50% and false rejection rates of >10% are considered unacceptable for the purpose of this study. RESULTS: Rejection criteria based on regression slope, intercept and paired difference (10%) for individual samples have high false rejection rates and/ or low probability of bias detection. T-statistics (α = 0.05) performed best in low range ratio (lowest-to-highest concentration in measurement range) and low imprecision scenarios. Mean difference (10%) performed better in all other range ratio and imprecision scenarios. Combining mean difference and paired-t test improves the power of bias detection but carries higher false rejection rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided objective evidence on commonly used rejection criteria to guide laboratory on the experimental design and statistical assessment for bias detection during method evaluation or reagent lot verification.

Calibration frequency and analytical variability of laboratory measurements.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty whether increased frequency of calibrations may affect the overall analytical variability of a measurement procedure as reflected in quality control (QC) performance. In this simulation study, we examined the impact of calibration frequencies on the variability of laboratory measurements. METHODS: A 5-point calibration curve was modeled with simulated concentrations ranging from 10 to 10,000 mmol/l, and signal intensities with CVs of 3 % around the mean, under a Gaussian distribution. 3 levels of QC (20, 150, 600 mmol/l) interspersed within the analytical measurement range were also simulated. RESULTS: The CV of the 3 QC levels remained stable across the different calibration frequencies simulated (5, 10, 15 and 30 QC measurements per recalibration episode). The imprecision was greatest (18 %) at the lowest concentration of 20 mmol/l, when the calibration curve was derived using ordinary least squares regression, reducing to 3.5 % and 3.8 % at 150 and 600 mmol/l, respectively. The CV of all 3 QC concentrations remained constant at 3.4 % and close the predefined CV (3 %) when weighted least squares regression was used to derive the calibration model. Similar findings were observed with 2-point calibrations using WLS models at narrower concentration ranges (50 and 100 mmol/l as well as 50 and 500 mmol/l). DISCUSSION: Within the parameters of the simulation study, an increased frequency of calibration events does not adversely impact the overall analytical performance of a measurement procedure under most circumstances.

Lot-to-lot variation and verification.

Lot-to-lot verification is an integral component for monitoring the long-term stability of a measurement procedure. The practice is challenged by the resource requirements as well as uncertainty surrounding experimental design and statistical analysis that is optimal for individual laboratories, although guidance is becoming increasingly available. Collaborative verification efforts as well as application of patient-based monitoring are likely to further improve identification of any differences in performance in a relatively timely manner. Appropriate follow up actions of failed lot-to-lot verification is required and must balance potential disruptions to clinical services provided by the laboratory. Manufacturers need to increase transparency surrounding release criteria and work closer with laboratory professionals to ensure acceptable reagent lots are released to end users. A tripartite collaboration between regulatory bodies, manufacturers, and laboratory medicine professional bodies is key to developing a balanced system where regulatory, manufacturing, and clinical requirements of laboratory testing are met, to minimize differences between reagent lots and ensure patient safety. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine has served as a fertile platform for advancing the discussion and practice of lot-to-lot verification in the past 60 years and will continue to be an advocate of this important topic for many more years to come.