4.7 Article

Patient-based pre-classified real-time quality control (PCRTQC)

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 549, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117562

关键词

PBRTQC; Quality control; Laboratory management; Analytical errors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a patient-based pre-classified real-time quality control (PCRTQC) approach, which effectively reduces interference from diverse patient types and enhances data processing and quality control protocols.
Background: Patient-based real-time quality control (PBRTQC) has gained increasing attention in clinical laboratory management. Although its valuable characteristics complement traditional quality control measures, its performance and practical application have faced scrutiny. In this study, patient-based pre-classified real-time quality control (PCRTQC), an extended approach was devised to enhance real-time quality control protocols. Methods: PCRTQC distinguishes itself by incorporating an additional patient pre-classification step utilising the OPTICS algorithm, thus addressing interference from diverse patient types. The complete set of patient test results obtained from a clinical chemistry analyser at The First Hospital of China Medical University in 2021 was utilised. Constant error (CE) and proportional error (PE) were introduced as analytical errors. Four analytes were selected to evaluate the PCRTQC, measuring probability for false rejection (Pfr) and the average number of patient samples until error detection (ANPed). Relevant error detection charts were generated. Results: The PCRTQC outperformed regression-adjusted real-time quality control (RARTQC) based on the ANPed by approximately 50% for both the CE and PE, compared to the RARTQC, particularly for the total allowable error threshold. Conclusion: The pre-classification step effectively reduced inter-individual variation and improved data preprocessing, filtering, and modelling. The PCRTQC is a robust framework for real-time quality control research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据