Cargando…

Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case

For accredited crime laboratories and other Forensic Science Service Providers (FSSPs) performing a method validation can be a time consuming and laborious process, particularly when performed independently by an individual FSSP. In this proposed collaborative method validation model, FSSPs performi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wickenheiser, Ray, Farrell, Laurel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.003
_version_ 1783575204947034112
author Wickenheiser, Ray
Farrell, Laurel
author_facet Wickenheiser, Ray
Farrell, Laurel
author_sort Wickenheiser, Ray
collection PubMed
description For accredited crime laboratories and other Forensic Science Service Providers (FSSPs) performing a method validation can be a time consuming and laborious process, particularly when performed independently by an individual FSSP. In this proposed collaborative method validation model, FSSPs performing the same task using the same technology are encouraged to work together cooperatively to permit standardization and sharing of common methodology to increase efficiency for conducting validations and implementation. FSSPs following applicable standards that are early to validate a method incorporating a new technology, platform, kit, or reagents are encouraged to publish their work in a recognized peer reviewed journal. Publication of validation data provides communication of technological improvements and allows reviews by others that supports the establishment of validity. It also permits other FSSPs to conduct a much more abbreviated method validation, a verification, if they adhere strictly to the method parameters provided in the publication by the original FSSP. By completing this verification, the second FSSP has reviewed and accepts the original published data and findings, thereby eliminating significant method development work. Utilization of published validation data increases efficiency through shared experiences and provides a cross check of original validity to benchmarks established by the originating FSSP. Utilization of the same method and same parameter set enables direct cross comparison of data and ongoing improvements. A business case will be provided to demonstrate the cost savings of the collaborative validation model using salary, sample and opportunity cost bases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7452674
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74526742020-09-02 Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case Wickenheiser, Ray Farrell, Laurel Forensic Sci Int Synerg Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel) For accredited crime laboratories and other Forensic Science Service Providers (FSSPs) performing a method validation can be a time consuming and laborious process, particularly when performed independently by an individual FSSP. In this proposed collaborative method validation model, FSSPs performing the same task using the same technology are encouraged to work together cooperatively to permit standardization and sharing of common methodology to increase efficiency for conducting validations and implementation. FSSPs following applicable standards that are early to validate a method incorporating a new technology, platform, kit, or reagents are encouraged to publish their work in a recognized peer reviewed journal. Publication of validation data provides communication of technological improvements and allows reviews by others that supports the establishment of validity. It also permits other FSSPs to conduct a much more abbreviated method validation, a verification, if they adhere strictly to the method parameters provided in the publication by the original FSSP. By completing this verification, the second FSSP has reviewed and accepts the original published data and findings, thereby eliminating significant method development work. Utilization of published validation data increases efficiency through shared experiences and provides a cross check of original validity to benchmarks established by the originating FSSP. Utilization of the same method and same parameter set enables direct cross comparison of data and ongoing improvements. A business case will be provided to demonstrate the cost savings of the collaborative validation model using salary, sample and opportunity cost bases. Elsevier 2020-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7452674/ /pubmed/32885160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.003 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel)
Wickenheiser, Ray
Farrell, Laurel
Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title_full Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title_fullStr Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title_full_unstemmed Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title_short Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case
title_sort collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: discussion and business case
topic Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.003
work_keys_str_mv AT wickenheiserray collaborativeversustraditionalmethodvalidationapproachdiscussionandbusinesscase
AT farrelllaurel collaborativeversustraditionalmethodvalidationapproachdiscussionandbusinesscase