Search

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance Characteristics (LEAP) checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lot-to-lot verification is an integral component for monitoring the long-term stability of a measurement procedure. The practice is challenged by the resource requirements as well as uncertainty surrounding experimental design and statistical analysis that is optimal for individual laboratories, although guidance is becoming increasingly available. Collaborative verification efforts as well as application of patient-based monitoring are likely to further improve identification of any differences in performance in a relatively timely manner. Appropriate follow up actions of failed lot-to-lot verification is required and must balance potential disruptions to clinical services provided by the laboratory. Manufacturers need to increase transparency surrounding release criteria and work closer with laboratory professionals to ensure acceptable reagent lots are released to end users. A tripartite collaboration between regulatory bodies, manufacturers, and laboratory medicine professional bodies is key to developing a balanced system where regulatory, manufacturing, and clinical requirements of laboratory testing are met, to minimize differences between reagent lots and ensure patient safety. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine has served as a fertile platform for advancing the discussion and practice of lot-to-lot verification in the past 60 years and will continue to be an advocate of this important topic for many more years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Method evaluation is one of the critical components of the quality system that ensures the ongoing quality of a clinical laboratory. As part of implementing new methods or reviewing best practices, the peer-reviewed published literature is often searched for guidance. From the outset, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) has a rich history of publishing methods relevant to clinical laboratory medicine. An insight into submissions, from editors' and reviewers' experiences, shows that authors still struggle with method evaluation, particularly the appropriate requirements for validation in clinical laboratory medicine. Here, we consider through a series of discussion points an overview of the status, challenges, and needs of method evaluation from the perspective of clinical laboratory medicine. We identify six key high-level aspects of clinical laboratory method evaluation that potentially lead to inconsistency. 1. Standardisation of terminology, 2. Selection of analytical performance specifications, 3. Experimental design of method evaluation, 4. Sample requirements of method evaluation, 5. Statistical assessment and interpretation of method evaluation data, and 6. Reporting of method evaluation data. Each of these areas requires considerable work to harmonise the practice of method evaluation in laboratory medicine, including more empirical studies to be incorporated into guidance documents that are relevant to clinical laboratories and are freely and widely available. To further close the loop, educational activities and fostering professional collaborations are essential to promote and improve the practice of method evaluation procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]