Lab Med Online.  2014 Apr;4(2):65-70.

Verification of Comparability among Quantitative Results Obtained Using Multiple Instruments within a Health Care System

• Kim BH
• Cha YJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The comparability of results obtained for the same analyte using more than 1 instrument should be evaluated periodically. We used a standardized guideline (C54-A) proposed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute in 2008 to verify comparability of patient results between 2 automated biochemical analyzers used within 1 healthcare system.
METHODS
Comparability between 2 automated biochemical analyzers [OLYMPUS AU5421 (Beckman-Coulter, USA)] were evaluated using patient blood samples. The test parameters were albumin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, blood urea nitrogen, calcium, cholesterol, creatinine, direct bilirubin, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, glucose, ionized phosphorus, lactate dehydrogenase, protein, total bilirubin, and uric acid.
RESULTS
Quality control data for 6 months were used to calculate the desired concentration. Biological variation was used to establish critical differences and determine the number of replicates. The calculated ranges of all test parameters were less than their critical differences, so comparability between the 2 instruments was considered acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute C54-A guideline is useful for the verification of comparability of results obtained with 2 instruments within 1 healthcare system.

Keyword

Bias; Quality control; Comparative study

MeSH Terms

Alanine Transaminase
Alkaline Phosphatase
Aspartate Aminotransferases
Bias (Epidemiology)
Bilirubin
Blood Urea Nitrogen
Calcium
Cholesterol
Creatinine
Delivery of Health Care*
gamma-Glutamyltransferase
Glucose
Humans
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase
Phosphorus
Quality Control
Uric Acid
Alanine Transaminase
Alkaline Phosphatase
Aspartate Aminotransferases
Bilirubin
Calcium
Cholesterol
Creatinine
Glucose
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase
Phosphorus
Uric Acid
gamma-Glutamyltransferase

Reference

1. Lee WC, Min WK, Chun SI, Jang SS, Chi HS, Park CJ, et al. Reorganization of automated outpatient laboratory to improve total. Korean J Lab Med. 2004; 24:334–338.

2. Wilson LS. New benchmarks and design criteria for laboratory consolidations. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2003; 17:90–98.

3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Verification of comparability of patient results within one health care system; approved guideline. C54-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;2008.

4. Westgard JO, editor. Desirable specifications for total error, imprecision, and bias, derived from intra- and inter-individual biologic variation. Updated on 2012. http://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm.

5. La Porta AD, Bowden AS, Barr S. Impact of the Coulter LH 750 on productivity, turnaround time and workflow in a core laboratory. Lab Hematol. 2002; 8:218–224.

6. La Porta AD, Bowden AS, Barr S. Workflow improvement and impact of the new Beckman Coulter LH 1500 high throughput automated hematology workcell. Lab Hematol. 2004; 10:95–101.

7. Markin RS, Whalen SA. Laboratory automation: trajectory, technology and tactics. Clin Chem. 2000; 46:764–771.

8. Young DS. Laboratory automation: smart strategies and practical applications. Clin Chem. 2000; 46:740–745.

9. Felder RA. Modular workcells: modern methods for laboratory automation. Clin Chim Acta. 1998; 278:257–267.

10. The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and Laboratory Medicine Foundation. Laboratory accreditation program checklist: clinical chemistry. 2012. p. 34.

11. Larsen ML, Fraser CG, Petersen PH. A comparison of analytical goals for haemoblobin A1c assays derived using different strategies. Ann Clin Biochem. 1991; 28:272–278.

12. Nolan J, Schiøler T, Brosnan P, Irjala K, Nuutila P, McNair P, et al. Clinical utility of an international thyroid database. Clin Chim Acta. 1993; 222:117–121.

13. Chin R, Lee BY. Principles and Practice of Clinical Trial Medicine. Burlington: Academic Press;2008. p. 72–75.