JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation Vol. 20 Issue 5, 536-544
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Farr, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Freeman, K. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Farr, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Freeman, K. P.

Full Scientific Reports

Quality control validation, application of sigma metrics, and performance comparison between two biochemistry analyzers in a commercial veterinary laboratory

Alison J. Farr1 and Kathleen P. Freeman

Correspondence: 1Corresponding Author: Alison J. Farr, IDEXX Laboratories, Grange House, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS22 4YY, England. alison-farr{at}idexx.com

A review of the literature pertinent to interpretation of biochemistry data and quality control (QC) and proficiency testing data from 2 biochemistry analyzers was used to determine clinical quality requirements for biochemistry assays, characterize the performance of and calculate sigma metrics for the analytes run on the 2 analyzers, and perform QC validation in order to determine the needs for statistical QC for each analyzer. Quality requirements suitable for the analytes based on the needs of the authors' laboratory are presented. These requirements may or may not be appropriate for other laboratories, depending on the needs of the clients, species, and equipment performance capability. The majority of the analytes were easily controlled using the 13s control rule, with a sigma metric approaching or exceeding 6 and with a high probability of error detection and a low probability of false rejection. Some analytes could not be controlled using the 13s rule, and additional control rules with a greater number of control data points were required. There were differences between performances of the 2 analyzers. The findings in the present study emphasize the need for QC specific for the analyte and the clinical decision level and the need for separate QC validation on every instrument.

Key Words: Quality control • quality control validation • sigma metrics • veterinary laboratory






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.