Cargando…

A method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays (clinical biochemical, blood count, immunological, and qPCR) to evaluate analytical performance

BACKGROUND: The measurement method for experimental resolution and related data to evaluate analytical performance is poorly explored in clinical research. We established a method to measure the experimental resolution of clinical tests, including biochemical tests, automatic hematology analyzer met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Chenxi, Wang, Dongxia, Xu, Henggui, Yang, Guang, Yan, Xiaomei, Liu, Hui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34724262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24087
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The measurement method for experimental resolution and related data to evaluate analytical performance is poorly explored in clinical research. We established a method to measure the experimental resolution of clinical tests, including biochemical tests, automatic hematology analyzer methods, immunoassays, chemical experiments, and qPCR, to evaluate their analytical performance. METHODS: Serially diluted samples in equal proportions were measured, and correlation analysis was performed between the relative concentration and the measured value. Results were accepted for p ≤ 0.01 of the correlation coefficient. The minimum concentration gradient (eg, 10%) was defined as the experimental resolution. For this method, the smaller the value, the higher the experimental resolution and the better the analytical performance. RESULTS: The experimental resolution of the most common biochemical indices reached 10%, with some even reaching 1%. The results of most counting experiments showed experimental resolution up to 10%, whereas the experimental resolution of the classical chemical assays reached 1%. Unexpectedly, the experimental resolution of more sensitive assays, such as immunoassays was only 25% when using the manual method and 10% for qPCR. CONCLUSION: This study established a method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays and provides a new index for evaluating the reliability of methods in clinical laboratories.