Search

Background: The need to harmonize laboratory information is particularly intense in the field of plasma proteins, considering their clinical impact and relevance in monitoring diseases. Methods: We evaluated units and reference intervals (RIs) utilized by participants of the External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) for plasma proteins of the Centre of Biomedical Research. Moreover, we evaluated inter-laboratory analytical variability from 2001 to 2017. Results: The census of participants' units employed in 2017 showed that for albumin (ALB), ~66% of laboratories still used dL instead of L, and for most other proteins, ~70% still expressed the results in mg/dL. Laboratories primarily used the RIs reported in the packaging inserts of their analytical systems, but for each protein, there was a wide variability of RIs, also among laboratories using the same analytical method. Mean CVs% of the 13 certified proteins in the last five EQA cycles ranged from 3.8% of haptoglobin (HPT) to 12.4% of α1-antitrypsin (AAT) and decreased from 2001 to 2017 for most of them, in particular for C3, ALB, α2-macroglobulin (A2M), HPT and transferrin (TRF). Conclusions: In the face of a reduction in inter-laboratory variability for a lot of proteins, there has not been a substantial change in the units and in the RIs used by the participants. To change old habits is difficult and requires coordination and collaboration. The EQAS plays an important role in the assessment and monitoring of all elements that contribute to the formulation of laboratory information and may be useful to contribute to their harmonization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Manual microscopy still represents the gold standard for urinary sediment (US) examination. We report the results obtained in the period 2012-2015 by the EQA Italian program on US, which today involves about 260 laboratories. Methods: The program includes four surveys per year. In two surveys, participants are asked to supply identification and clinical association of US particles. In two other surveys, they are asked to supply the diagnosis of clinical cases, presented with images, some key laboratory findings and a short clinical history. Sixty-six images of US particles (21 cells, 2 lipids, 21 casts, 10 crystals, 3 microorganisms, 15 contaminants) and seven clinical cases were presented. Results: The correct identification rate for each category of particles, in decreasing order, was: micro-organisms (mean±SD: 92.4%±4.5%), lipids (92.0%±1.8%), casts (82.8%±8.8%), crystals (79.4%±29.8%), cells (77.3%±13.5%), and contaminants (70.9%±22.2%). For 13 particles, a correct clinical association was indicated by 91.5%±11.7% of participants, while it was 52.7% for particles associated with urinary tract infection. For clinical cases, due to a high rate of particles misidentification, only 44.3%±10.1% of participants achieved access to clinical diagnosis, which was then correctly indicated by 92.5%±5.3% of them. Conclusions: The results of the EQA program confirm that, while some US particles are well known in terms of identification, clinical association and clinical meaning, others particles still are not, and this represents an important reason to encourage EQA programs on US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]