4.6 Article

Detection capability of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) and reporting of low faecal haemoglobin concentrations

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 611-616

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0464

关键词

detection capability; faecal haemoglobin; faecal immunochemical test; limit of blank; limit of detection; limit of quantitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) are widely used in asymptomatic population screening for colorectal (bowel) cancer. FIT are also used to assist with the assessment of patients presenting with lower abdominal symptoms. Quantitative FIT allow the generation of numerical estimates of faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations. There is now great interest in low f-Hb concentrations in these clinical settings: in consequence, knowledge of the detection capability is very important for f-lib concentration examinations. There are a number of current problems associated with the reporting of low f-Hb concentrations and wide misunderstanding of the metrological aspects of examinations of f-Hb at low concentrations. These would be solved if the detectability characteristics of f-Hb concentration examinations, namely, the limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantitation (LoQ), were generated, validated and used in reporting systems exactly as recommended in the EP17-A2 guideline of the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. LoB and LoD are statistical concepts, but the LoQ depends on definition of analytical performance specifications (APS). In this Opinion Paper proposals for interim APS are made, based on the current state of the art achieved with examinations of faecal samples. It is proposed that LoQ is determined at an examination imprecision of CV <= 10% using faecal samples naturally positive for Hb rather than faeces spiked with haemolysate. Detailed proposals for reporting f-Hb data at low concentrations are also made.

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

4.6
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