Linearity assessment: deviation from linearity and residual of linear regression approaches.

In this computer simulation study, we examine four different statistical approaches of linearity assessment, including two variants of deviation from linearity (individual (IDL) and averaged (AD)), along with detection capabilities of residuals of linear regression (individual and averaged). From the results of the simulation, the following broad suggestions are provided to laboratory practitioners when performing linearity assessment. A high imprecision can challenge linearity investigations by producing a high false positive rate or low power of detection. Therefore, the imprecision of the measurement procedure should be considered when interpreting linearity assessment results. In the presence of high imprecision, the results of linearity assessment should be interpreted with caution. Different linearity assessment approaches examined in this study performed well under different analytical scenarios. For optimal outcomes, a considered and tailored study design should be implemented. With the exception of specific scenarios, both ADL and IDL methods were suboptimal for the assessment of linearity compared. When imprecision is low (3 %), averaged residual of linear regression with triplicate measurements and a non-linearity acceptance limit of 5 % produces <5 % false positive rates and a high power for detection of non-linearity of >70 % across different types and degrees of non-linearity. Detection of departures from linearity are difficult to identify in practice and enhanced methods of detection need development.

Bilirubin measurements in neonates: uniform neonatal treatment can only be achieved by improved standardization.

Measurement of total bilirubin (TBil) concentration in serum is the gold standard approach for diagnosing neonatal unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia. It is of utmost importance that the measured TBil concentration is sufficiently accurate to prevent under treatment, unnecessary escalation of care, or overtreatment. However, it is widely recognized that TBil measurements urgently require improvement in neonatal clinical chemistry. External quality assessment (EQA) programs for TBil assess for differences between laboratories and provide supporting evidence of significant differences between various methods, manufacturers and measurement platforms. At the same time, many countries have adopted or only slightly adapted the neonatal hyperbilirubinemia management guidelines from the USA or UK, often without addressing differences in the methodology of TBil measurements. In this report, we provide an overview of the components of bilirubin that are measured by laboratory platforms, the availability of current reference measurement procedures and reference materials, and the role of EQA surveys in this context. Furthermore, the current status of agreement in neonatal bilirubin against clinical decision thresholds is reviewed. We advocate for enhancements in accuracy and comparability of neonatal TBil measurements, propose a path forward to accomplish this, and reflect on the position of the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Working Group Neonatal Bilirubin (WG-NB) in this matter.

Counting Conditions on Newborn Bloodspot Screening Panels in Australia and New Zealand.

A greater number of screened conditions is often considered to equate to better screening, whereas it may be due to conditions being counted differently. This manuscript describes a harmonised Australasian approach to listing target conditions found on bloodspot screening panels. Operational definitions for target disorders and incidental findings were developed and applied to disorder lists. A gap analysis was performed between five, state-based Australian newborn screening programme disorder lists and the single national New Zealand and state-level Californian versions. Screening panels were found to be broadly similar. Gap analysis with Californian data reflected differences in jurisdictional approval (for example, haemoglobinopathies and lysosomal disorders not being recommended in Australasia). Differences amongst Australasian panels reflected varied the timeframes recommended in order to implement newly approved disorders, as well as decisions to remove previously screened disorders. A harmonised approach to disorder counting is essential to performing valid comparisons of newborn bloodspot screening panels.

Prospective cohort study of genomic newborn screening: BabyScreen+ pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

Quality assurance programs for vitamin A and E in serum: are we doing enough to assess laboratory performance?

OBJECTIVES: Monitoring serum vitamin A (retinol) and vitamin E (α-tocopherol) concentrations is common practice for assessing nutritional status. Measurement of these vitamins can be challenging due to several factors. Whilst the RCPAQAP Vitamins: Serum Program assists participating laboratories in harmonisation, the materials provided do not contain the analogues of retinol and α-tocopherol that may be present in real patient samples. We aimed to assess participants' capacity to accurately report retinol and α-tocopherol in the presence of the vitamin E analogues tocopherol acetate and γ-tocopherol. METHODS: A supplementary series of a control sample and three matched spiked samples were distributed to each laboratory participating in the Program. Retinol and α-tocopherol results for each spiked sample were compared to the results of the control sample submitted by each participant. Acceptability of retinol and α-tocopherol results was determined based on the RCPAQAP allowable performance specifications (APS). RESULTS: Thirteen participants returned results for the supplementary sample series. Interference from α-tocopherol acetate was observed with results below the APS in 30 % (n=4) of laboratories for retinol quantification and in 23 % (n=3) for α-tocopherol quantification. One laboratory returned results above the APS for α-tocopherol when γ-tocopherol was present. CONCLUSIONS: This supplementary sample series has shown that the presence of vitamin E analogues can lead to the over or under estimation of nutritional status by some participants. Affected laboratories are encouraged to review their analytical procedures. To further assess laboratory competence, EQA providers should consider using patient samples or spiked challenge samples.

Ensuring quality in 17OHP mass spectrometry measurement: an international study assessing isomeric steroid interference.

OBJECTIVES: Interference from isomeric steroids is a potential cause of disparity between mass spectrometry-based 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17OHP) results. We aimed to assess the proficiency of mass spectrometry laboratories to report 17OHP in the presence of known isomeric steroids. METHODS: A series of five samples were prepared using a previously demonstrated commutable approach. These samples included a control (spiked to 15.0 nmol/L 17OHP) and four challenge samples further enriched with equimolar concentrations of 17OHP isomers (11α-hydroxyprogesterone, 11ß-hydroxyprogesterone, 16α-hydroxyprogesterone or 21-hydroxyprogesterone). These samples were distributed to 38 participating laboratories that reported serum 17OHP results using mass spectrometry in two external quality assurance programs. The result for each challenge sample was compared to the control sample submitted by each participant. RESULTS: Twenty-six laboratories (68 % of distribution) across three continents returned results. Twenty-five laboratories used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and one used gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to measure 17OHP. The all-method median of the control sample was 14.3 nmol/L, ranging from 12.4 to 17.6 nmol/L. One laboratory had results that approached the lower limit of tolerance (minus 17.7 % of the control sample), suggesting the isomeric steroid caused an irregular result. CONCLUSIONS: Most participating laboratories demonstrated their ability to reliably measure 17OHP in the presence of the four clinically relevant isomeric steroids. The performance of the 12 (32 %) laboratories that did not engage in this activity remains unclear. We recommend that all laboratories offering LC-MS/MS analysis of 17OHP in serum, plasma, or dried bloodspots determine that the isomeric steroids are appropriately separated.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance Characteristics (LEAP) checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for Laboratory Evaluation and Analytical Performance Characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript.The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

The LEAP checklist for laboratory evaluation and analytical performance characteristics reporting of clinical measurement procedures.

Reporting a measurement procedure and its analytical performance following method evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal is an important means for clinical laboratory practitioners to share their findings. It also represents an important source of evidence base to help others make informed decisions about their practice. At present, there are significant variations in the information reported in laboratory medicine journal publications describing the analytical performance of measurement procedures. These variations also challenge authors, readers, reviewers, and editors in deciding the quality of a submitted manuscript. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols (IFCC WG-MEP) developed a checklist and recommends its adoption to enable a consistent approach to reporting method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics of measurement procedures in laboratory medicine journals. It is envisioned that the LEAP checklist will improve the standardisation of journal publications describing method evaluation and analytical performance characteristics, improving the quality of the evidence base that is relied upon by practitioners.

Best Practice for Identification of Classical 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency Should Include 21 Deoxycortisol Analysis with Appropriate Isomeric Steroid Separation.

There are mixed reports on the inclusion and use of 21 deoxycortisol (21DF) as the primary decision marker for classical 21-hydroxylase deficiency. We hypothesize that this may be due to insufficient recognition of the presence and chromatographic separation of isomeric steroids. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative utility of 21DF for screening and diagnosis of CAH due to classical 21-hydroxylase deficiency using a second-tier LC-MS/MS method that included the separation of isomeric steroids to 17OHP and 21DF. For each baby sample, one 3.2 mm dried blood spot was eluted in a methanolic solution containing isotopically matched internal standards. Data were interrogated by univariate and receiver operator characteristic analysis. Steroid profile results were generated for 924 non-CAH baby samples (median gestational age 37 weeks, range 22 to 43 weeks) and 17 babies with 21-hydroxylase deficiency. The ROC curves demonstrated 21DF to have the best sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of classical 21-hydroxylase deficiency with an AUC = 1.0. The heatmap showed the very strong correlation (r = 0.83) between 17OHP and 21DF. Our data support 21DF as a robust marker for CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. We recommend that 21DF be incorporated into routine newborn screening panels as part of the second-tier LC-MS/MS method, follow-up plasma steroid panels, and external quality assurance material.