Detection of between-lot reagent bias is clinically important and can be assessed by application of regression-based statistics on several paired measurements obtained from the existing and new candidate lot. Here, the bias detection capability of six regression-based lot-to-lot reagent verification assessments, including an extension of the Bland–Altman with regression approach are compared.
Least squares and Deming regression (in both weighted and unweighted forms), confidence ellipses and Bland–Altman with regression (BA-R) approaches were investigated. The numerical simulation included permutations of the following parameters: differing result range ratios (upper:lower measurement limits), levels of significance (alpha), constant and proportional biases, analytical coefficients of variation (CV), and numbers of replicates and sample sizes. The sample concentrations simulated were drawn from a uniformly distributed concentration range.
At a low range ratio (1:10, CV 3%), the BA-R performed the best, albeit with a higher false rejection rate and closely followed by weighted regression approaches. At larger range ratios (1:1,000, CV 3%), the BA-R performed poorly and weighted regression approaches performed the best. At higher assay imprecision (CV 10%), all six approaches performed poorly with bias detection rates <50%. A lower alpha reduced the false rejection rate, while greater sample numbers and replicates improved bias detection.
When performing reagent lot verification, laboratories need to finely balance the false rejection rate (selecting an appropriate alpha) with the power of bias detection (appropriate statistical approach to match assay performance characteristics) and operational considerations (number of clinical samples and replicates, not having alternate reagent lot).
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Not acceptable.
Ethical approval: Not acceptable.
1. Algeciras-Schimnich, A, Bruns, DE, Boyd, JC, Bryant, SC, La Fortune, KA, Grebe, SK. Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions. Clin Chem 2013;59:1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2013.205070.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Loh, TP, Lee, LC, Sethi, SK, Deepak, DS. Clinical consequences of erroneous laboratory results that went unnoticed for 10 days. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:260–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201165.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Chen, X, Wang, J, Zhang, W, Xie, E, Zhang, B, Xu, HG. Failure of internal quality control in detecting significant reagent lot shift in serum creatinine measurement. J Clin Lab Anal 2019;33:e22991. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22991.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User evaluation of between-reagent lot variation; approved guideline CLSI document EP26-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008.Search in Google Scholar
7. Mazzo, DJ, Connolly, M. Analytical method comparison based upon statistical power calculations. Pharm Res (NY) 1992;9:601–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015885607013.10.1023/A:1015885607013Search in Google Scholar
9. Thompson, S, Chesher, D. Lot-to-lot variation. Clin Biochem Rev 2018;39:51–60.Search in Google Scholar
11. Sadler, WA. Joint parameter confidence regions improve the power of parametric regression in method-comparison studies. Accred Qual Assur 2010;15:547–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-010-0674-9.Search in Google Scholar
14. van Schrojenstein Lantman, M, Çubukçu, HC, Boursier, G, Panteghini, M, Bernabeu-Andreu, FA, Milinkovic, N, et al.. An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:681–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0083.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Loh, TP, Sandberg, S, Horvath, AR. Lot-to-lot reagent verification: challenges and possible solutions. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:675–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0092.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Tan, RZ, Punyalack, W, Graham, P, Badrick, T, Loh, TP. Detecting reagent lot shifts using proficiency testing data. Pathology 2019;51:711–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2019.08.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0274).
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston