Cargando…

Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?

INTRODUCTION: Moving average (MA) means calculating the average value from a set of patient results and further using that value for analytical quality control purposes. The aim of this study was to examine whether the selection, optimization and validation of MA procedures can be performed using th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lukić, Vera, Ignjatović, Svetlana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31624463
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.030710
_version_ 1783457754987364352
author Lukić, Vera
Ignjatović, Svetlana
author_facet Lukić, Vera
Ignjatović, Svetlana
author_sort Lukić, Vera
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Moving average (MA) means calculating the average value from a set of patient results and further using that value for analytical quality control purposes. The aim of this study was to examine whether the selection, optimization and validation of MA procedures can be performed using the already described bias detection simulation method and whether it is possible to select appropriate MA procedures for a laboratory with a small daily testing volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was done on four analytes: creatinine, potassium, sodium and albumin. All patient results of these tests processed during six months were taken from the laboratory information system. Using the MA Generator software, different MA procedures were analysed. Different inclusion criteria, calculation formulas, batch sizes and weighting factors were tested. Selection of optimal MA procedures was based on their ability to detect simulated biases of different sizes. After optimization, the validation of MA procedures was done. The results were presented by bias detection curves and MA validation charts. RESULTS: Simple MA procedures for albumin and sodium without truncation limits were selected as optimal. Exponentially weighted MA procedures were found optimal for creatinine and potassium, with the upper truncation limits of 150 μmol/L and 6 mmol/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It has been experimentally confirmed that it is possible to perform the selection, optimization and validation of MA procedures using the bias detection simulation method. Also, it is possible to define MA procedures optimal for a laboratory with a small daily testing volume.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6784424
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67844242019-10-17 Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done? Lukić, Vera Ignjatović, Svetlana Biochem Med (Zagreb) Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Moving average (MA) means calculating the average value from a set of patient results and further using that value for analytical quality control purposes. The aim of this study was to examine whether the selection, optimization and validation of MA procedures can be performed using the already described bias detection simulation method and whether it is possible to select appropriate MA procedures for a laboratory with a small daily testing volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was done on four analytes: creatinine, potassium, sodium and albumin. All patient results of these tests processed during six months were taken from the laboratory information system. Using the MA Generator software, different MA procedures were analysed. Different inclusion criteria, calculation formulas, batch sizes and weighting factors were tested. Selection of optimal MA procedures was based on their ability to detect simulated biases of different sizes. After optimization, the validation of MA procedures was done. The results were presented by bias detection curves and MA validation charts. RESULTS: Simple MA procedures for albumin and sodium without truncation limits were selected as optimal. Exponentially weighted MA procedures were found optimal for creatinine and potassium, with the upper truncation limits of 150 μmol/L and 6 mmol/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It has been experimentally confirmed that it is possible to perform the selection, optimization and validation of MA procedures using the bias detection simulation method. Also, it is possible to define MA procedures optimal for a laboratory with a small daily testing volume. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2019-10-15 2019-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6784424/ /pubmed/31624463 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.030710 Text en ©Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Lukić, Vera
Ignjatović, Svetlana
Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title_full Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title_fullStr Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title_short Optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
title_sort optimizing moving average control procedures for small-volume laboratories: can it be done?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31624463
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.030710
work_keys_str_mv AT lukicvera optimizingmovingaveragecontrolproceduresforsmallvolumelaboratoriescanitbedone
AT ignjatovicsvetlana optimizingmovingaveragecontrolproceduresforsmallvolumelaboratoriescanitbedone