Biological variation data for lipid cardiovascular risk assessment biomarkers. A systematic review applying the biological variation data critical appraisal checklist (BIVAC).

BACKGROUND: Biological variation (BV) data can be used to set analytical performance specifications (APS) for lipid assays. Poor performance will impact upon the efficacy of international guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment (CVR) and relevant clinical decision limits. This systematic review applies the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC) to published studies of BV of CVR biomarkers enabling metanalysis of the data. METHODS: Studies of BV of total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoproteins A1 and B, retrieved using a systematic literature search, were evaluated and graded using the BIVAC. Meta-analysis of CVI and CVG estimates were performed utilizing weightings based upon BIVAC grades and the width of the data confidence intervals. RESULTS: Applying the BIVAC, ten publications were graded as D, 43 as C, 5 as B and 1 as A (fully compliant). A total of 196 CVI and 87 CVG estimates were available for the different lipid measurands. The meta-analysis-derived BV data estimates were generally concordant with those in the online 2014 BV database. CONCLUSIONS: Application of BIVAC identifies BV data suitable for many important applications including setting APS. Additionally, this review identifies a need for new BIVAC compliant studies to deliver BV reference data in different subpopulations.

Category 1 external quality assessment program for serum creatinine.

BACKGROUND: The Commission of Analytical Quality and the Committee of External Quality Programs of Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC) in collaboration with the Dutch Foundation for the Quality organized the first national category 1 External Quality Assessment Programs (EQAP) pilot study. The aim is to evaluate the standardization of serum creatinine measurements in the Spanish laboratories through a category 1 external quality assurance program with commutable material and reference method assigned values. METHODS: A total of 87 Spanish laboratories were involved in this program in 2015. Each day a sample control was measured by duplicate during 6 consecutive days. Percentage deviations and coefficients of variation obtained were compared with quality specifications derived from biological variation. RESULTS: A total of 1044 creatinine results were obtained. Laboratories were coded in 11 different method-traceability combinations. Only enzymatic methods get all results within the acceptability limits. DISCUSSION: To participate in a category 1 EQAP is a valuable tool to assess the standardization degree in our country; a big effort should be made to promote laboratories to change their procedures and to use enzymatic creatinine methods, in order to achieve a satisfactory standardization degree for this important analyte.

Collective opinion paper on findings of the 2010 convocation of experts on laboratory quality.

As a part of a series of yearly meeting, in May 2010 over 40 medical laboratory opinion leaders, pathologists, clinical biochemists and physicians from Europe, Israel and South Africa gathered together in Bardolino, Italy to discuss issues and current challenges for laboratory medicine, including a) the use of biological variation 10 years after the Stockholm Conference; b) achieving quality in point-of-care testing; c) assessing risk and controlling sources of error in the laboratory; d) determining the appropriate frequency of quality control; and f) putting laboratory medicine at the core of patient care. The intended goal of the convocation was to give laboratory professionals from different countries and backgrounds the opportunity to share ideas, concerns and experiences in previously mentioned areas of interest. This paper provide a synopsis of the reports from each working group.

Postanalytical external quality assessment of urine albumin in primary health care: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Microalbuminuria (MA) is recognized as an important risk factor for cardiovascular and renal complications in diabetes. We sought to evaluate how screening for MA is conducted and how urine albumin (UA) results are interpreted in primary care internationally. METHODS: General practitioners (GPs) received a case history-based questionnaire depicting a male type 2 diabetes patient in whom UA testing had not been performed. Questions were related to type of urine sample used for UA testing, need for a repeat test, whether UA testing was performed in the office laboratory, and what changes in UA results were considered clinically important [critical difference (CD)]. Participants received national benchmarking feedback reports. RESULTS: We included 2078 GPs from 9 European countries. Spot urine samples were used most commonly for first time office-based testing, whereas timed collections were used to a larger extent for hospital-based repeat tests. Repeat tests were requested by 45%-77% of GPs if the first test was positive. Four different measurement units were used by 70% of participants in estimating clinically important changes in albumin values. Stated CDs varied considerably among GPs, with similar variations in each country. A median CD of 33% was considered clinically important for both improvement and deterioration in MA, corresponding to an achievable analytical imprecision of 14%, when UA is reported as an albumin/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines on diagnosing MA are followed only partially, and should be made more practicable, addressing issues such as type of samples, measurement units, and repeat tests.

Quality indicators and specifications for strategic and support processes in laboratory medicine.

BACKGROUND: This work is the second part of a study regarding indicators and quality specifications for the non-analytical processes in laboratory medicine. Five primary care and five hospital laboratories agreed on the indicators for two strategic processes (quality planning and project development) and various support processes (client relationships, instrument and infrastructure maintenance, safety and risk prevention, purchases and storage, personnel training). METHODS: In the majority of cases, the median values recorded over 1 year is considered to be the state-of-the-art in our setting and proposed as the quality specification for the indicators stated. Values have been stratified according to primary care and hospital laboratory for referred tests and group of personnel for training. In some cases, the specifications have been set equal to zero events, such as serious incidents in the infrastructure maintenance process and number of work accidents in the safety and risk prevention process. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In light of this study, an effort is needed to optimize decisions regarding corrective actions and to move from a subjective individual criterion to systematic and comparative management. This preliminary study provides a comprehensive vision of a subject that could motivate further research and advances in the quality of laboratory services.

Postanalytical external quality assessment of blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is diagnosed and monitored worldwide by blood glucose (BG) and glycohemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) testing, respectively. Methods for quality assessment of clinician interpretations of changes in these laboratory results have been developed. This study uses survey responses from general practitioners (GPs) in different countries to investigate possible differences in interpretation of results, as well as the feasibility of performing international postanalytical external quality assessment surveys (P-EQAS). METHODS: GPs recruited from 7 countries received questionnaires requesting interpretation of changes in a potentially diagnostic capillary BG result and an HbA(1c) value obtained during monitoring of a patient with type 2 DM. GPs were asked to estimate clinically significant differences between 2 consecutive laboratory results [critical difference (CD)/reference change value] for both BG and HbA(1c). The CDs reported by GPs were used to calculate the analytical variation (CV(a)), which was taken as the quality specification for analytical imprecision. Participants received national benchmarking feedback reports after the survey. RESULTS: The study included responses from 2538 GPs. CDs in BG results showed the same pattern and were comparable among countries. Calculated median CV(a) values would be possible to attain at 80% confidence but not at the conventional 95% confidence. For HbA(1c), the same pattern was shown across countries, but with lower changes considered true when HbA(1c) increased than when it decreased. Despite the consistent pattern, variations among GPs were considerable in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of CDs for BG and HbA(1c) were similar internationally, and quality specifications for these analytes based on clinicians' opinions are therefore interchangeable among countries. International P-EQAS may contribute to a more rational use of laboratory services and clinical guidelines.