Comparative analysis of calculating sigma metrics by a trueness verification proficiency testing-based approach and an internal quality control data inter-laboratory comparison-based approach

The application of sigma metrics in the laboratory to assess quality control processes in South Africa

Background

Laboratories use quality control processes to monitor and evaluate analytical performance in terms of precision and bias. Sigma metrics provide an objective assessment of laboratory quality using the total allowable error as an additional parameter.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the sigma metrics of analytes when using different total allowable error guidelines.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 19 general chemistry analytes at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital in South Africa between January 2017 and December 2017. Sigma metrics were calculated on two identical analysers, using internal quality control data and total allowable error guidelines from the Ricos biological variation database and three alternative sources (the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment, and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine).

Results

The sigma performance was similar on both analysers but varied based on the guideline used, with the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment guidelines resulting in the best sigma metrics (53% of analytes on one analyser and 46% on the other had acceptable sigma metrics) and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia guidelines being the most stringent (21% and 23%). Sodium and chloride performed poorly across all guidelines (sigma < 3). There were also month-to-month variations that may result in acceptable sigma despite poor performance during certain months.

Conclusion

The sigma varies greatly depending on the total allowable error, but could be a valuable tool to save time and decrease costs in high-volume laboratories. Sigma metrics calculations need to be standardised.

Sigma Metrics in Laboratory Medicine: A Call for Harmonization

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sigma metrics are applied in clinical laboratories to assess the quality of analytical processes. A parameter associated to a Sigma >6 is considered "world class" whereas a Sigma <3 is "poor" or "unacceptable". The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify the impact of different approaches for Sigma metrics calculation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two IQC levels of 20 different parameters were evaluated for a 12-month period. Sigma metrics were calculated using the formula: (allowable total error (TEa) (%) - bias (%))/(coefficient of variation (CV) (%)). Method precision was calculated monthly or annually. The bias was obtained from peer comparison program (PCP) or external quality assessment program (EQAP), and 9 different TEa sources were included.

RESULTS

There was a substantial monthly variation of Sigma metrics for all combinations, with a median variation of 32% (IQR, 25.6-41.3%). Variation across multiple analyzers and IQC levels were also observed. Furthermore, TEa source had the highest impact on Sigma calculation with proportions of Sigma >6 ranging from 17.5% to 84.4%. The nature of bias was less decisive.

CONCLUSION

In absence of a clear consensus, we recommend that laboratories calculate Sigma metrics on a sufficiently long period of time (>6 months) and carefully evaluate the choice of TEa source.

Establishment of risk quality control charts based on risk management strategies

BACKGROUND

Risk management strategies have been proposed for applications in clinical laboratories to reduce patient risks; however, effective and visual risk-monitoring tools are currently lacking in medical laboratories. In this study, we constructed a risk quality control (QC) chart based on risk management strategies.

METHODS

We calculated the risk levels of QC materials based on Bayes' theorem by combining the total allowable error, QC results, and the maximum number of unacceptable errors in the laboratory. Then, we constructed a risk QC chart by presenting the Z values and corresponding risk levels of QC materials simultaneously. Finally, we evaluated the risk-monitoring capabilities of the risk QC charts by simulating different long-term errors in the laboratory.

RESULTS

The risk levels of QC materials increased as the QC results moved further away from the set mean. Larger sigma values led to fewer risks obtained for the same QC results. The constructed risk QC charts intuitively showed specific risk levels and could warn lab staff out-of-control, without the need for QC rules to make judgments. The risk levels of erroneous results differed for items with different sigma performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based QC charts allowed visualization of the QC results and specific risk levels simultaneously, providing more intuitive results than those obtained from traditional QC charts.

Application of Sigma metrics in the quality control strategies of immunology and protein analytes

Background

Six Sigma (6σ) is an efficient laboratory management method. We aimed to analyze the performance of immunology and protein analytes in terms of Six Sigma.

Methods

Assays were evaluated for these 10 immunology and protein analytes: Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin A (IgA), Immunoglobulin M (IgM), Complement 3 (C3), Complement 4 (C4), Prealbumin (PA), Rheumatoid factor (RF), Anti streptolysin O (ASO), C‐reactive protein (CRP), and Cystatin C (Cys C). The Sigma values were evaluated based on bias, four different allowable total error (TEa) and coefficient of variation (CV) at QC materials levels 1 and 2 in 2020. Sigma Method Decision Charts were established. Improvement measures of analytes with poor performance were recommended according to the quality goal index (QGI), and appropriate quality control rules were given according to the Sigma values.

Results

While using the TEa_NCCL, 90% analytes had a world‐class performance with σ>6, Cys C showed marginal performance with σ<4. While using minimum, desirable, and optimal biological variation of TEa, only three (IgG, IgM, and CRP), one (CRP), and one (CRP) analytes reached 6σ level, respectively. Based on σ_NCCL that is calculated from TEa_NCCL, Sigma Method Decision Charts were constructed. For Cys C, five multi‐rules (1_3s/2_2s/R_4s/4_1s/6_X, N = 6, R = 1, Batch length: 45) were adopted for QC management. The remaining analytes required only one QC rule (1_3s, N = 2, R = 1, Batch length: 1000). Cys C need to improve precision (QGI = 0.12).

Conclusions

The laboratories should choose appropriate TEa goals and make judicious use of Sigma metrics as a quality improvement tool.

Internal Quality Control Data of Urine Reagent Strip Tests and Derivation of Control Rules Based on Sigma Metrics

Background

Urine reagent strip test (URST) results are semi-quantitative; therefore, the precision of URSTs is evaluated as the proportion of categorical results from repeated measurements of a sample that are concordant with an expected result. However, URSTs have quantitative readout values before ordinal results challenging statistical monitoring for internal quality control (IQC) with control rules. This study aimed to determine the sigma metric of URSTs and derive appropriate control rules for IQC.

Methods

The URiSCAN Super Plus fully automated urine analyzer (YD Diagnostics, Yongin, Korea) was used for URSTs. Change in reflectance rate (change %R) data from IQC for URSTs performed between November 2018 and May 2020 were analyzed. Red blood cells, bilirubin, urobilinogen, ketones, protein, glucose, leukocytes, and pH were measured from 2-3 levels of control materials. The total allowable error (TE_a) for a grade was the difference in midpoints of a predefined change %R range between two adjacent grades. The sigma metric was calculated as TE_a/SD. Sigma metric-based control rules were determined with Westgard EZ Rules 3 software (Westgard QC, Madison, WI, USA).

Results

Seven out of the eight analytes had a sigma metric >4 in the control materials with a negative grade (-), which were closer to the cut-offs. Corresponding control rules ranged from 1_2.5s to 1_3.5s.

Conclusions

Although the URST is a semi-quantitative test, statistical IQC can be performed using the readout values. According to the sigma metric, control rules recommended for URST IQC in routine clinical practice are 1_2.5s to 1_3.5s.

Sigma metrics of Alinity ci system - a study on thirty-nine clinical chemistry and immunoassay parameters

Objectives

Sigma metrics in an invaluable and inexpensive tool used in laboratories to monitor analytical quality of the assays. Alinity ci platform is a relatively recent analytical system launched by Abbott Diagnostics, and as such performance studies on it are few. We have calculated sigma metrics of 39 clinical chemistry and immunoassay analytes on two Alinity ci systems.

Methods

Sigma metrics were calculated using results of method validation studies. Coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated according to CLSI EP 15 guidelines. Bias was calculated using three different methods i.e., proficiency testing material, alternate method comparison with existent analyzers and linearity experiment. Total allowable error limits were kept similar to or less than the ones used in reference studies.

Results

All analytes except blood urea nitrogen (BUN) demonstrated greater than six sigma value across one or more levels and methods. No analyte amongst clinical chemistry and immunoassays was at below three sigma class. Amongst electrolytes, sodium was below three sigma class at two levels by proficiency testing method, although it was above four sigma class by other two methods. Sigma levels obtained were comparable to those reported in previously published studies.

Conclusions

Acceptable sigma metrics were achieved for all clinical chemistry, immunoassays and electrolytes on Alinity ci. Sigma metrics is an objective and well established cost effective tool to tailor internal quality control practices. This study determines sigma metrics for a wide range of high throughput assays. Long term assay performance needs to be monitored.

Sigma metrics application for validated and non-validated detecting systems performance assessment

Background

Sigma metrics provide an objective and quantitative methodology for analytical quality evaluation of clinical laboratory. This study investigated the testing performance of validated systems and non‐validated systems based on sigma metrics, and explored the major parameters affecting the system performance.

Methods

Sigma metrics were evaluated by six biochemistry assays based on Beckman and Mindray validated and non‐validated systems through crossing the reagents and analyzers. Imprecision and bias were assessed for all assays based on trueness programs organized by National Centre for Clinical Laboratory. Total error allowance obtained from the Chinese Ministry of Health Clinical Laboratory Centre Industry Standard (WS/T403‐2012).

Results

The imprecision for all systems meets the quality specifications except TP assay (2.19%) detected by Mindray non‐validated system, and the bias for four assays measured by non‐validated systems cannot fulfill the criterion, including lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total protein (TP), triglycerides (TG), and glucose (GLU). Higher biases were detected in six assays at different levels among non‐validated and validated systems. Systems performed poorly or unacceptably for TP assay with sigma metrics lower than 3 except Mindray non‐validated system. The sigma metrics for other assays with four systems were greater than 3 except the LDH evaluated on Mindray non‐validated systems.

Conclusion

Non‐validated systems may introduce performance uncertainty compared with validated systems based on sigma metrics evaluation, and lower bias was provided by validated systems. The performance of non‐validated systems should be evaluated thoroughly in the clinical laboratory before they were adopted for routine use.

Evaluation of the analytical performance of endocrine analytes using sigma metrics

Background

(a) To evaluate the clinical performance of endocrine analytes using the sigma metrics (σ) model. (b) To redesign quality control strategies for performance improvement.

Methods

The sigma values of the analytes were initially evaluated based on the allowable total error (TEa), bias, and coefficient of variation (CV) at QC materials level 1 and 2 in March 2018. And then, the normalized QC performance decision charts, personalized QC rules, quality goal index (QGI) analysis, and root causes analysis (RCA) were performed based on the sigma values of the analytes. Finally, the sigma values were re‐evaluated in September 2018 after a series of targeted corrective actions.

Results

Based on the initial sigma values, two analytes (FT3 and TSH) with σ > 6, only needed one QC rule (1_3S) with N2 and R500 for QC management. On the other hand, seven analytes (FT4, TT4, CROT, E2, PRL, TESTO, and INS) with σ < 4 at one QC material level or both needed multiple rules (1_3S/2_2S/R_4S/4_1S/10_X) with N6 and R10‐500 depending on different sigma values for QC management. Subsequently, detailed and comprehensive RCA and timely corrective actions were performed on all the analytes base on the QGI analysis. Compared with the initial sigma values, the re‐evaluated sigma metrics of all the analytes increased significantly.

Conclusions

It was demonstrated that the combination of sigma metrics, QGI analysis, and RCA provided a useful evaluation system for the analytical performance of endocrine analytes.

Comparative analysis of calculating sigma metrics by a trueness verification proficiency testing-based approach and an internal quality control data inter-laboratory comparison-based approach

Introduction

Two methods were compared for evaluating the sigma metrics of clinical biochemistry tests using two different allowable total error (TEa) specifications.

Materials and methods

The imprecision (CV%) and bias (bias%) of 19 clinical biochemistry analytes were calculated using a trueness verification proficiency testing (TPT)‐based approach and an internal quality control data inter‐laboratory comparison (IQC)‐based approach, respectively. Two sources of total allowable error (TEa), the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) and the People's Republic of China Health Industry Standard (WS/T 403‐2012), were used to calculate the sigma metrics (σ_CLIA, σ_WS/T). Sigma metrics were calculated to provide a single value for assessing the quality of each test based on a single concentration level.

Results

For both approaches, σ_CLIA > σ_WS/T in 18 out of 19 assays. For the TPT‐based approach, 16 assays showed σ_CLIA > 3, and 12 assays showed σ_WS/T > 3. For the IQC‐based approach, 19 and 16 assays showed σ_CLIA > 3 and σ_WS/T > 3, respectively.

Conclusions

Both methods can be used as references for calculating sigma metrics and designing QC schedules in clinical laboratories. Sigma metrics should be evaluated comprehensively by different approaches.