The final part of the CRESS trilogy - how to evaluate the quality of stability studies.

ABSTRACT

High quality laboratory results are critical for patient management. However, poor sample quality can impact these results and patient safety. To ensure reliable and accurate results laboratories must be aware of each analyte's stability under various storage conditions and matrices to guarantee correct and dependable outcomes. This knowledge allows laboratories to define the allowable delay between sample collection and centrifugation/analysis for all analytes to guarantee appropriate results quality and interpretation. The EFLM Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) therefore established a 4-step plan to tackle this issue, aiming to standardize and harmonize stability studies for improved comparison and meta-analysis. The plan included the development of checklists and how-to guides for performing and reporting stability studies as well as a central resource of stability data. This manuscript deals with the issue of evaluating publications and incorporating them into a central resource. To evaluate stability studies, the CRESS checklist was used to structure 20 sections used to judge the quality of studies. Each section has 4 levels of quality, with scores converted to numerical values and weighted based on expert opinion. Based on this, a final score ranging from A to D was determined. The procedure was then tested on six manuscripts and checked for agreement between expert judgements. The results demonstrated that the proposed evaluation process is a useful tool to distinguish between best in class manuscripts and those of lower quality. The EFLM WG-PRE strongly believes that the provided recommendations and checklists will help improving stability studies both in quality and standardisation.