Ann Lab Med.  2024 May;44(3):245-252. 10.3343/alm.2023.0236.

Evaluation of Coefficients of Variation for Clinical Chemistry Tests Based on Internal Quality Control Data Across 5,425 Laboratories in China From 2013 to 2022

• Wang W
• Zhang Z
• Zhang C
• Zhao H
• Yuan S
• Liu J
• Dong N
• Wang Z
• Kang F

• KMID: 2555695
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2023.0236

Abstract

Background
Clinical chemistry tests are most widely used in clinical laboratories, and diverse measurement systems for these analyses are available in China. We evaluated the imprecision of clinical chemistry measurement systems based on internal QC (IQC) data.
Methods
IQC data for 27 general chemistry analytes were collected in February each year from 2013 to 2022. Four performance specifications were used to calculate pass rates for CVs of IQC data in 2022. Boxplots were drawn to analyze trends of CVs, and differences in CVs among different groups were assessed using the Mann–Whitney U-test or Kruskal– Wallis test.
Results
The number of participating laboratories increased significantly from 1,777 in 2013 to 5,425 in 2022. CVs significantly decreased for all 27 analytes, except creatine kinase and lipase. Triglycerides, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, iron, and γ-glutamyl transferase achieved pass rates > 80% for all goals. Nine analytes with pass rates < 80% based on 1/3 allowable total error were further analyzed; the results indicated that closed systems exhibited lower CVs than open systems for all analytes, except total protein. For all nine analytes, differences were significant between tertiary hospitals and non-tertiary hospitals and between accredited and non-accredited laboratories.
Conclusions
The CVs of IQC data for clinical chemistry have seen a continuous overall improvement in China. However, there is ample room for imprecision improvement for several analytes, with stricter performance specifications.

Keyword

Clinical chemistry; Imprecision; Performance specification; Quality control

Reference

References

1. Rosenbaum MW, Flood JG, Melanson SEF, Baumann NA, Marzinke MA, Rai AJ, et al. 2018; Quality control practices for chemistry and immunochemistry in a cohort of 21 large academic medical centers. Am J Clin Pathol. 150:96–104. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqy033. PMID: 29850771.

2. Fei Y, Wang W, He F, Zhong K, Wang Z. 2016; Imprecision investigation and analysis of routine chemistry in China. J Clin Lab Anal. 30:444–50. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.21877. PMID: 26423825. PMCID: PMC6806704.

3. Kang F, Zhang C, Wang W, Wang Z. 2016; Sigma metric analysis for performance of creatinine with fresh frozen serum. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 76:40–4. DOI: 10.3109/00365513.2015.1091494. PMID: 26450266.

4. ISO 15189:2022. 2022. Medical laboratories-Requirements for quality and competence. 4th ed. International Organization for Standards;Geneva, Switzerland:

5. Duan M, Kang F, Zhao H, Wang W, Du Y, He F, et al. 2019; Analysis and evaluation of the external quality assessment results of quality indicators in laboratory medicine all over China from 2015 to 2018. Clin Chem Lab Med. 57:812–21. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0983. PMID: 30511924.

6. Westgard JO, Burnett RW. 1990; Precision requirements for cost-effective operation of analytical processes. Clin Chem. 36:1629–32. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/36.9.1629. PMID: 2119916.

7. CNAS-CL38:2012. 2012. Guidance on the application of accreditation criteria for the medical laboratory quality and competence in the field of clinical chemistry. China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment;Beijing, China:

8. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. 2015; Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 53:833–5. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0067. PMID: 25719329.

9. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. BV data for measurands. Updated in Feb 2023.

10. Kang F, Li W, Lou Y, Shan Z. 2022; Application of biological variation and sigma metrics to evaluate the performance of HbA1c in external quality assessment. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 82:398–403. DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2022.2100822. PMID: 35872643.

11. Ricós C, Alvarez V, Cava F, García-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jiménez CV, et al. 1999; Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 59:491–500. DOI: 10.1080/00365519950185229. PMID: 10667686.

12. Panteghini M, Sandberg S. 2015; Defining analytical performance specifications 15 years after the Stockholm conference. Clin Chem Lab Med. 53:829–32. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0303. PMID: 25901719.

13. Braga F, Panteghini M. 2021; Performance specifications for measurement uncertainty of common biochemical measurands according to Milan models. Clin Chem Lab Med. 59:1362–8. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0170. PMID: 33725754.

14. Panteghini M, Braga F, Camara JE, Delatour V, Van Uytfanghe K, Vesper HW, et al. 2021; Optimizing available tools for achieving result standardization: value added by joint committee on traceability in laboratory medicine (JCTLM). Clin Chem. 67:1590–605. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvab178. PMID: 34633037.

15. Oosterhuis WP, Coskun A, Sandberg S, Theodorsson E. 2023; Performance specifications for sodium should not be based on biological variation. Clin Chim Acta. 540:117221. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117221. PMID: 36640931.

16. Keleş M. 2022; Evaluation of the clinical chemistry tests analytical performance with Sigma Metric by using different quality specifications - Comparison of analyser actual performance with manufacturer data. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 32:010703. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2022.010703. PMID: 34955671. PMCID: PMC8672391.

17. Molina A, Guiñon L, Perez A, Segurana A, Bedini JL, Reverter JC, et al. 2018; State of the art vs biological variability: comparison on hematology parameters using Spanish EQAS data. Int J Lab Hematol. 40:284–91. DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.12783. PMID: 29405633.