ABSTRACT
Analytical performance specifications (APS) based on outcomes refer to how 'good' the analytical performance of a test needs to be to do more good than harm to the patient. Analytical performance of a measurand affects its clinical performance. Without first setting clinical performance requirements, it is difficult to define how good analytically the test needs to be to meet medical needs. As testing is indirectly linked to health outcomes through clinical decisions on patient management, often simulation-based studies are used to assess the impact of analytical performance on the probability of clinical outcomes which is then translated to Model 1b APS according to the Milan consensus. This paper discusses the related key definitions, concepts and considerations that should assist in finding the most appropriate methods for deriving Model 1b APS. We review the advantages and limitations of published methods and discuss the criteria for transferability of Model 1b APS to different settings. We consider that the definition of the clinically acceptable misclassification rate is central to Model 1b APS. We provide some examples and guidance on a more systematic approach for first defining the clinical performance requirements for tests and we also highlight a few ideas to tackle the future challenges associated with providing outcome-based APS for laboratory testing.
Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Humans , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standardsABSTRACT
Analytical performance specifications (APS) are used for decisions about the required analytical quality of pathology tests to meet clinical needs. The Milan models, based on clinical outcome, biological variation, or state of the art, were developed to provide a framework for setting APS. An approach has been proposed to assign each measurand to one of the models based on a defined clinical use, physiological control, or an absence of quality information about these factors. In this paper we propose that in addition to such assignment, available information from all models should be considered using a risk-based approach that considers the purpose and role of the actual test in a clinical pathway and its impact on medical decisions and clinical outcomes in addition to biological variation and the state-of-the-art. Consideration of APS already in use and the use of results in calculations may also need to be considered to determine the most appropriate APS for use in a specific setting.
Subject(s)
Quality Control , Humans , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Models, TheoreticalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Reference change values (RCV) are used to indicate a change in analyte concentration that is unlikely to be due to random variation in the patient or the measurement. Current theory describes RCV relative to a first measurement result (X1). We investigate an alternative view predicting the starting point for RCV calculations from X1 and its location in the reference interval. METHODS: Data for serum sodium, calcium, and total protein from the European Biological Variation study and from routine clinical collections were analyzed for the effect of the position of X1 within the reference interval on the following result from the same patient. A model to describe the effect was determined, and an equation to predict the RCV for a sample in a population was developed. RESULTS: For all data sets, the midpoints of the RCVs were dependent on the position of X1 in the population. Values for X1 below the population mean were more likely to be followed by a higher result, and X1 results above the mean were more likely to be followed by lower results. A model using population mean, reference interval dispersion, and result diagnostic variation provided a good fit with the data sets, and the derived equation predicted the changes seen. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the position of X1 within the reference interval creates an asymmetrical RCV. This can be described as a regression to the population mean. Adding this concept to the theory of RCVs will be an important consideration in many cases.
Subject(s)
Sodium , Humans , Reference Values , Sodium/blood , Calcium/bloodABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Laboratory results are increasingly interpreted against common reference intervals (CRIs), published clinical decision limits, or previous results for the same patient performed at different laboratories. However, there are no established systems to determine whether current analytical performance justifies these interpretations. We analysed data from a likely commutable external quality assurance program (EQA) to assess these interpretations. METHODS: The use of CRIs was assessed by evaluating instrument group medians against minimum specifications for bias. The use of clinical decision limits was assessed using specifications from professional bodies, and the monitoring of patients by testing at different laboratories was assessed by comparing all-laboratory imprecision to within-subject biological variation. RESULTS: Five of the 18 analytes with Australasian CRIs did not meet specification for all instrument groups. Among these, calcium and magnesium failed for one instrument group out of seven, while bicarbonate, chloride, and lipase failed for two instrument groups. Of the 18 analytes reviewed currently without CRIs in Australasia, 10 candidates were identified. Among analytes with clinical decision limits, i.e. lipids, glucose, and vitamin D, only triglycerides met both bias and imprecision specifications, while vitamin D met the imprecision specification. Monitoring patients by testing at different laboratories was supported for 15 of the 46 (33â¯%) analyte-method principles groups that met minimum imprecision specifications. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from commutable EQA programs can provide a mechanism for monitoring whether analytical performance justifies the interpretations made in contemporary laboratory practice. EQA providers should establish systems for routinely providing this information to the laboratory community.