An improved implementation of metrological traceability concepts is needed to benefit from standardization of laboratory results

Non-harmonization of laboratory results represents a concrete risk for patient safety. To avoid harms, it is agreed that measurements by in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MD) on clinical samples should be traceable to higher-order references and adjusted to give the same result. However, metrological traceability is not a formal claim and has to be correctly implemented, which in practice does not happen for a non-negligible number of measurands. Stakeholders, such as higher-order reference providers, IVD manufacturers, and External Quality Assessment organizers, have major responsibilities and should improve their contribution by unambiguously and rigorously applying what is described in the International Organization for Standardization 17511:2020 standard and other documents provided by the international scientific bodies, such as Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine and IFCC. For their part, laboratory professionals should take responsibility to abandon non-selective methods and move to IVD-MDs displaying proper selectivity, which is one of the indispensable prerequisites for the correct implementation of metrological traceability. The practicality of metrological traceability concepts is not impossible but relevant education and appropriate training of all involved stakeholders are essential to obtain the expected benefits in terms of standardization.

The harmonization issue in laboratory medicine: the commitment of CCLM

The analytical quality of the clinical laboratory results has shown a significant improvement over the past decades, thanks to the joint efforts of different stakeholders, while the comparability among the results produced by different laboratories and methods still presents some critical issues. During these years, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) published several papers on the harmonization issue over all steps in the Total Testing Process, training an important number of laboratory professionals in evaluating and monitoring all the criticisms inherent to the pre-analytical, as well as analytical and post analytical phases: from the consensus statement on the most informative testing in emergency setting, to the prevention and detection of hemolysis or to patients identification and tube labeling procedures, as far as to different approaches to harmonize hormones measurements or to describe new reference methods or to harmonize the laboratory report. During these years the commitment of the journal, devoted to the harmonization processes has allowed to improve the awareness on the topic and to provide specific instruments to monitor the rate of errors and to improve patients safety.

Big data and reference intervals: rationale, current practices, harmonization and standardization prerequisites and future perspectives of indirect determination of reference intervals using routine data

Reference intervals are commonly used as a decision-making tool. In this review, we provide an overview on "big data" and reference intervals, describing the rationale, current practices including statistical methods, essential prerequisites concerning data quality, including harmonization and standardization, and future perspectives of the indirect determination of reference intervals using routine laboratory data.

Metrological traceability and harmonization of medical tests: a quantum leap forward is needed to keep pace with globalization and stringent IVD-regulations in the 21st century!

In our efforts to advance the profession and practice of clinical laboratory medicine, strong coordination and collaboration are needed more than ever before. At the dawn of the 21st century, medical laboratories are facing many unmet clinical needs, a technological revolution promising a plethora of better biomarkers, financial constraints, a growing scarcity of well-trained laboratory technicians and a sharply increasing number of International Organization for Standardization guidelines and new regulations to which medical laboratories should comply in order to guarantee safety and effectiveness of medical test results. Although this is a global trend, medical laboratories across continents and countries are in distinct phases and experience various situations. A universal underlying requirement for safe and global use of medical test results is the standardization and harmonization of test results. Since two decades and after a number of endeavors on standardization/harmonization of medical tests, it is time to reflect on the effectiveness of the approaches used. To keep laboratory medicine sustainable, viable and affordable, clarification of the promises of metrological traceability of test results for improving sick and health care, realization of formal commitment among all stakeholders of the metrological traceability chain and preparation of a joint and global plan for action are essential prerequisites. Policy makers and regulators should not only overwhelm the diagnostic sector with oversight and regulations but should also create the conditions by establishing a global professional forum for anchoring the metrological traceability concept in the medical test domain. Even so, professional societies should have a strong voice in their (inter-) national governments to negotiate long-lasting public policy commitment and funds for global standardization of medical tests.

The quest for equivalence of test results: the pilgrimage of the Dutch Calibration 2.000 program for metrological traceability

Calibration 2.000 was initiated 20 years ago for standardization and harmonization of medical tests. The program also intended to evaluate adequate implementation of the In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) 98/79/EC directive, in order to ensure that medical tests are fit-for-clinical purpose. The Calibration 2.000 initiative led to ongoing verification of test standardization and harmonization in the Netherlands using commutable external quality assessment (EQA)-tools and a type 1 EQA-design, where feasible. National support was guaranteed by involving all laboratory professionals as well as laboratory technicians responsible for EQA and quality officers. A category 1 EQA-system for general chemistry analytes, harmonizers for specific analytes like hGH and IGF-1, and commutable materials for other EQA-sections have been developed and structurally introduced in the EQA-schemes. The type 1 EQA-design facilitates the dialogue between individual specialists in laboratory medicine and the IVD-industry to reduce lot-to-lot variation and to improve standardization. In such a way, Calibration 2.000 sheds light on the metrological traceability challenges that we are facing and helps the laboratory community to get the issues on the table and resolved. The need for commutable trueness verifiers and/or harmonizers for other medical tests is now seen as paramount. Much knowledge is present in the Netherlands and for general chemistry, humoral immunology and protein chemistry, a few endocrinology tests, and various therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) tests, commutable materials are available. Also the multi sample evaluation scoring system (MUSE) and the category 1 EQA-design offer many possibilities for permanent education of laboratory professionals to further improve the between and within laboratory variation and the test equivalence.