Abstract
Since the endorsement by ISO15189:2012 of measurement uncertainty (MU) for the estimation of error in measurement procedures, the debate has been ongoing with questions concerning which method should be used for estimating MU and the benefits of using MU over other error methods. However, only limited attention has been given to extra-analytical sources of uncertainty and, currently, a clear standpoint is still missing. This opinion paper aims to evaluate whether extra-analytical variables could be included in MU. Considering coagulation tests as an example, the possible sources of preanalytical variations are evaluated by using a fishbone diagram. After excluding preanalytical errors, additional sources of uncertainty are divided into amenable to standardization/harmonization and/or possible random sources, which are not standardizable nor harmonizable. Finally, sources of uncertainty are evaluated for a possible inclusion into MU. In addition, postanalytical uncertainty is discussed, particularly considering the laboratory results calculated through a mathematical equation, derived from one or more quantities affected by their specific uncertainty.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. ISO. ISO 15189: Medical laboratories – requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012.Search in Google Scholar
2. Westgard JO. Error methods are more practical, but uncertainty methods may still be preferred. Clin Chem 2018;64:636–8.10.1373/clinchem.2017.284406Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Farrance I, Badrick T, Frenkel R. Uncertainty in measurement and total error: different roads to the same quality goal? Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:2010–4.10.1515/cclm-2018-0421Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Farrance I, Badrick T, Sikaris KA. Uncertainty in measurement and total error – are they so incompatible? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1309–11.10.1515/cclm-2016-0314Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Padoan A, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Antonelli G, Plebani M. Measurement uncertainty in laboratory reports: a tool for improving the interpretation of test results. Clin Biochem 2018;57:41–7.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Padoan A, Antonelli G, Aita A, Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. An approach for estimating measurement uncertainty in medical laboratories using data from long-term quality control and external quality assessment schemes. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1696–701.10.1515/cclm-2016-0896Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Bernardi D, Aita A, Antonelli G, Padoan A. What information on measurement uncertainty should be communicated to clinicians, and how? Clin Biochem 2018;54:18–22.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Oosterhuis WP, Bayat H, Armbruster D, Coşkun A, Freeman KP, Kallner A, et al. The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:209–19.10.1515/cclm-2017-0341Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). Available from: www.bipm.org. Accessed: September 2018.Search in Google Scholar
10. Bhise V, Rajan SS, Sittig DF, Morgan RO, Chaudhary P, Singh H. Defining and measuring diagnostic uncertainty in medicine: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33:103–15.10.1007/s11606-017-4164-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Favaloro EJ, Dorothy MF, Lippi G. Pre-analytical variables in coagulation testing associated with diagnostic errors in hemostasis. Lab Med 2012;43:1–10.10.1309/LM749BQETKYPYPVMSearch in Google Scholar
12. JCGM 200:2012. International vocabulary of metrology – basic and general concepts and associated terms. Available from: www.bipm.org. Accessed: September 2018.Search in Google Scholar
13. Plebani M. Harmonization in laboratory medicine: more than clinical chemistry? Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1579–86.10.1515/cclm-2017-0865Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). GP44-A4: procedures for the handling and processing of blood specimens for common laboratory tests; approved guideline – fourth edition. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
15. Magnette A, Chatelain M, Chatelain B, Ten Cate H, Mullier F. Pre-analytical issues in the haemostasis laboratory: guidance for the clinical laboratories. Thromb J 2016;14:49.10.1186/s12959-016-0123-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Guder WG. Samples: from the patient to the laboratory: the impact of preanalytical variables on the quality of laboratory results, 3rd ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2003.10.1002/9783527612505Search in Google Scholar
17. Plebani M, Giuseppe L. Hemolysis index: quality indicator or criterion for sample rejection? Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:899–902.10.1515/CCLM.2009.229Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Nikolac N. Lipemia: causes, interference mechanisms, detection and management. Biochem Medica 2014;24:57–67.10.11613/BM.2014.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Bowen RA, Chan Y, Cohen J, Rehak NN, Hortin GL, Csako G, et al. Effect of blood collection tubes on total triiodothyronine and other laboratory assays. Clin Chem 2005;51:424–33.10.1373/clinchem.2004.043349Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Sylte MS, Wentzel-Larsen T, Bolann BJ. Estimation of the minimal preanalytical uncertainty for 15 clinical chemistry serum analytes. Clin Chem 2010;56:1329–35.10.1373/clinchem.2010.146050Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Chun KY. Biotin interference in diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 2017;63:619–20.10.1373/clinchem.2016.267286Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Chang CH, Wang YW, Yeh Liu PY, Kao Yang YH. A practical approach to minimize the interaction of dietary vitamin K with warfarin. J Clin Pharm Ther 2014;39:56–60.10.1111/jcpt.12104Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Vos MJ, Rondeel JM, Mijnhout GS, Endert E. Immunoassay interference caused by heterophilic antibodies interacting with biotin. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:e122–6.10.1515/cclm-2016-0786Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Favaloro EJ. How to generate a more accurate laboratory-based international normalized ratio: solutions to obtaining or verifying the mean normal prothrombin time and international sensitivity index. Semin Thromb Hemost 2019;45:10–21.10.1055/s-0038-1667342Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Kouri T, Siloaho M, Pohjavaara S, Koskinen P, Malminiemi O, Pohja-Nylander P, et al. Pre-analytical factors and measurement uncertainty. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2005;65:463–76.10.1080/00365510500208332Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Jones GR, Hawkins RC. Correcting laboratory results for the effects of interferences: an approach incorporating uncertainty of measurement. Ann Clin Biochem 2015;52:226–31.10.1177/0004563214533516Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Farrance I, Badrick T, Frenkel R. Uncertainty in measurement: a review of the procedures for determining uncertainty in measurement and its use in deriving the biological variation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate. Pract Lab Med 2018;12:e00097.10.1016/j.PLABM.2018.e00097Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
28. Chew G, Walczyk T. A Monte Carlo approach for estimating measurement uncertainty using standard spreadsheet software. Anal Bioanal Chem 2012;402:2463–9.10.1007/s00216-011-5698-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Hunter DJ. Uncertainty in the era of precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2016;375:711–3.10.1056/NEJMp1608282Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
