Defining allowable total error limits in the clinical laboratory.

Allowable total error (ATE) are performance specification limits predefined for a variety of laboratory analytes. These limits define the maximum amount of error that is allowed for an assay when judging acceptability of a new assay during method verification/validation, evaluating patient or instrument comparison data, or in designing a quality control strategy. There are several widely available resources and models that can serve as a guide in selecting ATE. They may be based on legal requirements or set by providers of proficiency testing (PT) and external quality assessment schemes (EQAS). ATE can be also determined by professional expert groups or be based on biological variation of an analyte. Because there are several resources to choose from, there have been several attempts in reaching consensus on which ATE resource should be given preference. This chapter reviews several of these resources in more detail and discusses the difference between allowable total error (ATE) and observed total analytical error (TAE).

Utilization and Results of Repeat SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Testing in a Presumptive Low Prevalence Population.

INTRODUCTION: Early reports have raised concerns regarding the clinical sensitivity of nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for patients with COVID-19 symptoms, which has led to requests for repeat testing at our institution. However, to our knowledge, there are no reports to date of the utilization or results of repeat testing to help guide this practice. METHODS: The authors searched the institutional laboratory information system for consecutive patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal specimen over a 1-month period. Characteristics and results of patients who received a single or multiple tests were documented and analyzed. RESULTS: Six thousand three (6003) tests were performed on 5757 patients; 272 (4.7%) patients were positive based on their initial test results. Two hundred thirty-six (4%) patients were tested more than once, with 226 (96%) tested twice. The largest proportion of these patients (n=160, 71%) were those who had an initial negative test followed by a repeat test for persistent symptoms. This group included all 7 patients who had discordant positive results on their second test; the result concordance rate within this group was 96%. CONCLUSION: In a population of patients with a low positive rate for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing, repeat nasopharyngeal testing of negative patients who have persistent symptoms still yields a negative result in 96% of the cases.