Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter February 18, 2022

Metrological traceability and clinical traceability of laboratory results – the role of commutability in External Quality Assurance

Graham R.D. Jones, Vincent Delatour and Tony Badrick

Abstract

The role of an External Quality Assurance (EQA) program is generally seen as providing a service to routine laboratories that their analytical performance is satisfactory and stimulating corrective action in the event of poor results. It is recognised that an ideal EQA program uses materials that are commutable with patient samples and have values assigned by higher-order reference methods. Despite this, most routine EQA programs use materials without verified commutability and use consensus means (based on either peer group or all laboratories) as target values. We propose an ongoing role for EQA programs using non-commutable materials and consensus targets to support the measurement services of routine laboratories. This is provided the relevant comparators supplied by the laboratory, e.g. reference intervals and clinical decision points, are based on the same or equivalent measurement system as is used by the laboratory. Materials without verified commutability often have certain practical advantages, which may include the range of analyte concentrations, verified stability, replicate samples and, significantly, lower costs. Laboratories using such programs need to be aware of the limitations, especially comparing results from different measurement systems. However, we also recognise that as well as individual laboratories, data from EQA programs informs manufacturers, professional organisations, clinical guideline writers and other medical bodies For consideration beyond an individual laboratory, proper assessment of differences between measurement systems (results harmonization) and demonstration of correct implementation of metrological traceability (methods trueness) become vital, and for that purpose, commutability of EQA materials and traceability of target values are required.


Corresponding author: Graham R.D. Jones, BSc(med), DPhil, MBBS, Department of chemical Pathology, SydPath, St Vincent’s Hospital, 380 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia; RCPAQAP, Sydney, Australia; and University of NSW, Sydney Australia, Phone: +61 2 8382 9160, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contribution: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. Miller, WG, Jones, GRD, Horowitz, GL, Weykamp, C. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. Clin Chem 2011;57:1670–80, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.168641.Search in Google Scholar

2. Jones, GRD, Albarede, S, Kesseler, D, MacKenzie, F, Mammen, J, Pedersen, M, et al.. Analytical performance specifications for EQAS (TFG-APSEQA) analytical performance specifications for external quality assessment – definitions and descriptions. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:949–55, https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0151.Search in Google Scholar

3. In vitro diagnostic medical devices—requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples. ISO 17511:2020.Search in Google Scholar

4. Jones, GRD, Jackson, C. The Joint committee for traceability in laboratory medicine (JCTLM) – its history and operation. Clin Chim Acta 2016;453:86–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2015.11.016.Search in Google Scholar

5. Panteghini, M. Traceability, reference systems and result comparability. Clin Biochem Rev 2007;28:97–104.Search in Google Scholar

6. Jones, GRD. Measurement uncertainty for clinical laboratories – a revision of the concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1303–7, https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0311.Search in Google Scholar

7. Apple, FS, Wu, AHB, Sandoval, Y, Sexter, A, Love, SA, Myers, G, et al.. Sex-specific 99th percentile upper reference limits for high sensitivity cardiac troponin assays derived using a universal sample bank. Clin Chem 2020;66:434–44, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvz029.Search in Google Scholar

8. Sturgeon, CM, Hoffman, BR, Chan, DW, Ch’ng, S-L, Hammond, E, Hayes, DF, et al.. National academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in clinical practice: quality requirements. Clin Chem 2018;54:e1–10, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.094144.Search in Google Scholar

9. Miller, WG, Schimmel, H, Rej, R, Greenberg, N, Ceriotti, F, Burns, C, et al.. IFCC working group recommendations for assessing commutability. Part 1: general experimental design. Clin Chem 2018;64:447–54, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2017.277525.Search in Google Scholar

10. Badrick, T, Punyalack, W, Graham, P. Commutability and traceability in EQA programs. Clin Biochem 2018;56:102–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.04.018.Search in Google Scholar

11. Huynh, HH, Bœuf, A, Pfannkuche, J, Schuetz, P, Thelen, M, Nordin, G, et al.. Harmonization status of procalcitonin measurements: what do comparison studies and EQA schemes tell us? Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:1610–22, https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0566.Search in Google Scholar

12. D E Q A S (vitamin D external quality assessment scheme). Available from: www.deqas.org [Accessed 20 Dec 2021].Search in Google Scholar

13. College of American Pathologists (CAP). Survey data. Updated January 2022. Available from: http://www.ngsp.org/CAPdata.asp [Accessed 14 Feb 2022].Search in Google Scholar

14. Delatour, V, Clouet-Foraison, N, Jaisson, S, Kaiser, P, Gillery, P. Trueness assessment of HbA1c routine assays: are processed EQA materials up to the job? Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1623–31, https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0219.Search in Google Scholar

15. HoSt/VDSCP: standardization of measurement procedures. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/labstandards/hs_standardization.html [Accessed 5 Jan 2022].Search in Google Scholar

16. CRMLN: cholesterol reference method laboratory network. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/labstandards/crmln.html [Accessed 5 Jan 2022].Search in Google Scholar

17. Wilson, PWF, Jacobson, TA, Martin, SS, Jackson, EJ, Le, NA, Davidson, MH, et al.. Lipid measurements in the management of cardiovascular diseases: practical recommendations a scientific statement from the national lipid association writing group. J Clin Lipidol 2021;15:48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2021.09.046.Search in Google Scholar

18. Filella, X, Albaladejo, MD, Allué, JA, Castaño, MA, Morell-Garcia, D, Ruiz, MA, et al.. Prostate cancer screening: guidelines review and laboratory issues. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1474–87, https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1252.Search in Google Scholar

19. Panteghini M for the IFCC Scientific Division. Enzymatic assays for creatinine: time for action. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:567–72, https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.113.Search in Google Scholar

20. CDC LSP: lipids standardization program. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/labstandards/lsp.html [Accessed 13 Jan 2022].Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-01-14
Revised: 2022-02-01
Accepted: 2022-02-07
Published Online: 2022-02-18
Published in Print: 2022-04-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston