Search

In this computer simulation study, we examine four different statistical approaches of linearity assessment, including two variants of deviation from linearity (individual (IDL) and averaged (AD)), along with detection capabilities of residuals of linear regression (individual and averaged). From the results of the simulation, the following broad suggestions are provided to laboratory practitioners when performing linearity assessment. A high imprecision can challenge linearity investigations by producing a high false positive rate or low power of detection. Therefore, the imprecision of the measurement procedure should be considered when interpreting linearity assessment results. In the presence of high imprecision, the results of linearity assessment should be interpreted with caution. Different linearity assessment approaches examined in this study performed well under different analytical scenarios. For optimal outcomes, a considered and tailored study design should be implemented. With the exception of specific scenarios, both ADL and IDL methods were suboptimal for the assessment of linearity compared. When imprecision is low (3 %), averaged residual of linear regression with triplicate measurements and a non-linearity acceptance limit of 5 % produces <5 % false positive rates and a high power for detection of non-linearity of >70 % across different types and degrees of non-linearity. Detection of departures from linearity are difficult to identify in practice and enhanced methods of detection need development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives An increase in analytical imprecision and/or the introduction of bias can affect the interpretation of quantitative laboratory results. In this study, we explore the impact of varying assay imprecision and bias introduction on the classification of patients based on fixed thresholds. Methods Simple spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel) were constructed to simulate conditions of assay deterioration, expressed as coefficient of variation and bias (in percentages). The impact on patient classification was explored based on fixed interpretative limits. A combined matrix of imprecision and bias of 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% (tool 1) as well as 0%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% (tool 2) was simulated, respectively. The percentage of patients who were reclassified following the addition of simulated imprecision and bias was summarized and presented in tables and graphs. Results The percentage of patients who were reclassified increased with increasing/decreasing magnitude of imprecision and bias. The impact of imprecision lessens with increasing bias such that at high biases, the bias becomes the dominant cause for reclassification. Conclusions The spreadsheet tools, available as Supplemental Material , allow laboratories to visualize the impact of additional analytical imprecision and bias on the classification of their patients when applied to locally extracted historical results. [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]

Objectives: Automated qualitative serology assays often measure quantitative signals that are compared against a manufacturer-defined cutoff for qualitative (positive/negative) interpretation. The current general practice of assessing serology assay performance by overall concordance in a qualitative manner may not detect the presence of analytical shift/drift that could affect disease classifications.Methods: We describe an approach to defining bias specifications for qualitative serology assays that considers minimum positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs). Desirable minimum PPVs and NPVs for a given disease prevalence are projected as equi-PPV and equi-NPV lines into the receiver operator characteristic curve space of coronavirus disease 2019 serology assays, and the boundaries define the allowable area of performance (AAP).Results: More stringent predictive values produce smaller AAPs. When higher NPVs are required, there is lower tolerance for negative biases. Conversely, when higher PPVs are required, there is less tolerance for positive biases. As prevalence increases, so too does the allowable positive bias, although the allowable negative bias decreases. The bias specification may be asymmetric for positive and negative direction and should be method specific.Conclusions: The described approach allows setting bias specifications in a way that considers clinical requirements for qualitative assays that measure signal intensity (eg, serology and polymerase chain reaction). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a reply to a letter that raised concerns about a previous study. The authors clarify that their study was not intended to derive analytical performance specifications based on indirect outcomes. Instead, their supplementary tool aimed to show the impact of changes in bias and imprecision on the interpretation of laboratory results. The authors also address concerns about the presentation and interpretation of simulation results, noting that different measurands, interpretation thresholds, and statistical assessments can lead to differing conclusions. They emphasize the importance of careful and objective review to avoid drawing misguided interpretations and conclusions. [Extracted from the article]

For example, an acceptance criteria of 0.9 to 1.1 for the slope coefficient, implies that a laboratory will accept a candidate reagent lot that produces a serum sodium that ranges from 126 mmol/L to 154 mmol/L, when compared to 140 mmol/L measured using the existing reagent lot. Dear editor A new (candidate) reagent lot can produce systematic differences in measurements when compared to the existing reagent lot [[1]]. The laboratory may first apply linear regression on paired measurements from the existing and new reagent lots to derive the slope and intercept coefficients. [Extracted from the article]