Application of the sigma metrics to evaluate the analytical performance of cystatin C and design a quality control strategy

Sigma metric used to evaluate the performance of haematology analysers: choosing an internal reference analyser for the laboratory

INTRODUCTION

The sigma metric offers a quantitative framework for evaluating process performance in clinical laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of automated analysers in haematology laboratories, using the sigma metric to choose the best analyser as an internal reference analyser.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

internal quality control (IQC) data were collected for 6 months from SNCS, and the sigma value was calculated for 9 haematology analysers in the laboratory.

RESULTS

For the normal control level, a satisfactory mean sigma value ≥3 was observed for all of the studied parameters of all automated analysers. For the low control level, platelet (PLT) count by Instrument (Inst.) G performed poorly, with a mean sigma value <3. Inst. H, with all parameters' sigma values >4, performed best and was chosen as the internal reference analyser.

CONCLUSION

The sigma metric can be used as a guide to choose the QC strategy and plan QC frequency. It can facilitate the comparison of the same assay performed by multiple systems.

Application of a six sigma model to evaluate the analytical performance of cerebrospinal fluid biochemical analytes and the design of quality control strategies for these assays: A single-centre study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we applied a six sigma model to examine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biochemical analytes for the first time. Our goal was to evaluate the analytical performance of various CSF biochemical analytes, design an optimized internal quality control (IQC) strategy, and formulate scientific and reasonable improvement plans.

METHODS

The sigma values of CSF total protein (CSF-TP), albumin (CSF-ALB), chloride (CSF-Cl), and glucose (CSF-GLU) were calculated using the following formula: sigma = [TEa(%)-|bias(%)|]/CV(%). The analytical performance of each analyte was shown using a normalized sigma method decision chart. Individualized IQC schemes and improvement protocols for CSF biochemical analytes were formulated using the Westgard sigma rule flow chart with batch size and quality goal index (QGI).

RESULTS

The distribution of sigma values for CSF biochemical analytes ranged from 5.0 to 9.9, and the sigma values varied for different concentrations of the same analyte. The analytical performance of the CSF assays at the two QC levels is displayed visually in normalized sigma method decision charts. Individualized IQC strategies for CSF biochemical analytes were as follows: for CSF-ALB, CSF-TP and CSF-Cl, use 1_3s with N = 2 and R = 1000; for CSF-GLU, use 1_3s/2_2s/R_4s with N = 2 and R = 450. In addition, priority improvement measures for analytes with sigma values less than 6 (CSF-GLU) were formulated based on the QGI, and their analytical performance was improved after the corresponding improvement measures were taken.

CONCLUSIONS

The six sigma model has significant advantages in practical applications involving CSF biochemical analytes and is highly useful for quality assurance and quality improvement.

A study of the moving rate of positive results for use in a patient-based real-time quality control program on a procalcitonin point-of-care testing analyzer

Objective

To establish an applicable and highly sensitive patient‐based real‐time quality control (PBRTQC) program based on a data model constructed with patients’ results of a procalcitonin point‐of‐care testing (POCT) analyzer.

Methods

Patients’ results were retrospectively collected within one year. The Excel software was used to establish quality control (QC) programs of the moving average (MA) and the moving rate of positive results (MR). A Monte Carlo simulation was used to introduce positive and negative biases between 0.01 and 1 ng/ml at random points of the testing data set. Different parameters were used to detect the biases, and the detection efficiency was expressed using the median number of patient samples affected until error detection (MNPed). After comparing the MNPeds of different programs, MA and MR programs with appropriate parameters were selected, and validation plots were generated using MNPeds and maximum number of the patient samples affected (MAX). β curves were generated using the power function of the programs, the performances were compared with that of the conventional QC program.

Results

Neither the conventional QC nor MA program was sensitive to small bias, While MR program can detect the minimum positive bias of 0.06 ng/ml and negative of 0.4 ng/ml at an average daily run size of 10 specimens, with FRs < 1.0%, βs < 1%.

Conclusion

The MR program, which is more sensitive to small biases than conventional QC and MA programs, with low FR and β. As such, it can be used as a PBRTQC program with high performance.

Application of a six sigma model to evaluate the analytical performance of urinary biochemical analytes and design a risk-based statistical quality control strategy for these assays: A multicenter study

Background

The six sigma model has been widely used in clinical laboratory quality management. In this study, we first applied the six sigma model to (a) evaluate the analytical performance of urinary biochemical analytes across five laboratories, (b) design risk‐based statistical quality control (SQC) strategies, and (c) formulate improvement measures for each of the analytes when needed.

Methods

Internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA) data for urinary biochemical analytes were collected from five laboratories, and the sigma value of each analyte was calculated based on coefficients of variation, bias, and total allowable error (TEa). Normalized sigma method decision charts for these urinary biochemical analytes were then generated. Risk‐based SQC strategies and improvement measures were formulated for each laboratory according to the flowchart of Westgard sigma rules, including run sizes and the quality goal index (QGI).

Results

Sigma values of urinary biochemical analytes were significantly different at different quality control levels. Although identical detection platforms with matching reagents were used, differences in these analytes were also observed between laboratories. Risk‐based SQC strategies for urinary biochemical analytes were formulated based on the flowchart of Westgard sigma rules, including run size and analytical performance. Appropriate improvement measures were implemented for urinary biochemical analytes with analytical performance lower than six sigma according to the QGI calculation.

Conclusions

In multilocation laboratory systems, a six sigma model is an excellent quality management tool and can quantitatively evaluate analytical performance and guide risk‐based SQC strategy development and improvement measure implementation.