Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 3.556

CiteScore 2017: 2.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.188

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 6

Issues

Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Sverre Sandberg
  • Corresponding author
  • Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen and Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Bergen, Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Callum G. Fraser
  • Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Andrea Rita Horvath
  • SEALS Department of Clinical Chemistry, Prince of Wales Hospital, Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Rob Jansen
  • Netherlands Foundation for Quality Assessment of Medical Laboratories (SKML), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Graham Jones / Wytze Oosterhuis / Per Hyltoft Petersen
  • Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Heinz Schimmel
  • European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Geel, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ken Sikaris / Mauro Panteghini
  • Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen and Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Bergen, Norway
  • Centre for Metrological Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (CIRME), University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-02-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0067

The Organisers and the Scientific Programme Committee (SPC) of the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) on ‘Defining analytical performance goals 15 years after the Stockholm Conference on Quality Specifications in Laboratory Medicine’, held in Milan (IT) on November 24–25, 2014, are pleased to report on the success of the Conference.

The primary aim was to revisit the ‘Consensus Agreement’ from the Stockholm Conference investigating to what extent the advocated hierarchy is still valid or if it should be changed. A revision of the original hierarchy established by the Stockholm Conference was presented to the meeting with opportunity for discussion and feedback by conference participants. This revision further underwent modification and explanatory additions by the SPC in an attempt to simplify the hierarchy and improve its application by various stakeholders.

Consensus statement

Analytical performance specifications

In this revision, the hierarchy is simplified and represented by three different models to set analytical performance specifications. There is general agreement that some of these are better suited for certain measurands than for others.

Model 1. Based on the effect of analytical performance on clinical outcomes

This can, in principle, be done using different types of studies:

  1. Direct outcome studies – investigating the impact of analytical performance of the test on clinical outcomes;

  2. Indirect outcome studies – investigating the impact of analytical performance of the test on clinical classifications or decisions and thereby on the probability of patient outcomes, e.g., by simulation or decision analysis.

The advantage of this approach is that it addresses the influence of analytical performance on clinical outcomes that are relevant to patients and society. The primary disadvantage is that it is only useful for examinations where the links between the test, clinical decision-making and clinical outcomes are straightforward and strong. Furthermore, analytical specifications derived in direct or indirect outcome studies will often be influenced by the current measurement quality and results may vary according to the actual test method used, the investigated population and healthcare settings.

Model 2. Based on components of biological variation of the measurand

This attempts to minimize the ratio of ‘analytical noise’ to the biological signal. The advantage is that it can be applied to most measurands for which population-based or subject-specific biological variation data can be established. There are limitations to this approach, including the need to carefully assess the relevance and validity of the biological variation data, e.g., the presence of ‘steady state’, the appropriate time intervals, effect of inter-current illness and effect of measurand concentrations.

Model 3. Based on state-of-the-art

This relates to the highest level of analytical performance technically achievable. Alternatively, it could be defined as the analytical performance achieved by a certain percentage of laboratories. If the best laboratories can only achieve a certain quality and better quality is needed (according to models 1 or 2), then improvements are required in the technology. If most laboratories can achieve a certain quality, then laboratories not meeting this level may need to change their practice.

The advantage of this model is that state-of-the-art performance data are readily available. The disadvantage is that there may be no relationship between what is technically achievable and what is needed to minimize the ratio of ‘analytical noise’ to the biological signal or needed to obtain an improved clinical outcome.

Explanatory notes

It should be noted that the three models use different principles. The hierarchy assumes that high quality studies or data are available for each model. Proposed analytical performance specifications should therefore always be accompanied by a statement of the rationale, the source and the quality of the evidence behind the recommendation.

Some models will be better suited for certain measurands than for others. It is therefore recommended that a list be made allocating measurands to different models. Preference should be given to models 1 and 2. In some situations, it can be advantageous to combine the different models.

Some measurands could have different performance specifications defined when the test has multiple intended clinical applications. For example, performance specifications could be defined for blood glucose in a critical care setting by simulation of the impact of the test on probable patient outcomes (model 1b), for self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes by clinical outcome studies (model 1a) or by a more general approach based on biological variation (model 2).

The application of the analytical performance specification can be modulated depending on its use. For example, users can be reference material providers, in vitro diagnostics manufacturers who produce calibrators, organizations who distribute materials for external quality assessment or individual laboratories who provide patient results.

Models for setting performance specifications of examinations using ordinal and ratio scales should follow one of the three models outlined above.

Performance specifications for pre- and post-analytical phases

It is acknowledged that, for patient care, optimizing the quality of the total (pre-analytical/analytical/post-analytical) examination process is the ultimate goal and therefore it would be desirable to go beyond setting analytical performance specifications and to establish examination performance specifications. In principle, the performance specifications for the pre- and post-analytical laboratory processes should follow the same models as for analytical performance specifications. When components of these additional phases can be expressed in numerical terms, they should be added in defining examination performance specifications. In other situations, pre- and post-analytical performance specifications will be best represented by separate quality indicators that should reflect models 1 and 3 listed above.

The SPC of the 1st EFLM Strategic Conference proposes a simplified hierarchy with three models for defining analytical performance specifications. The SPC encourages users to expand those specifications to the total examination process. It is desirable that analytical performance is defined by the highest possible hierarchical model. This approach acknowledges that the intended use of the test, the actual purpose of using the analytical performance specification by various stakeholders and the quality of the available evidence behind each model may modulate the selection of the best approach.

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Financial support: 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.

About the article

Corresponding author: Sverre Sandberg, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen and Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Bergen, Norway, E-mail:


Published Online: 2015-02-18

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 833–835, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0067.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
[2]
E. González-Lao, Z. Corte, M. Simón, C. Ricós, A. Coskun, F. Braga, A.K. Aarsand, A. Carobene, W.A. Bartlett, B. Boned, B. Asland, J. Díaz-Garzón, F. Marqués-García, J. Minchinela, C. Perich, P. Fernández-Calle, T. Roraas, P. Fernández-Fernández, N. Jonker, and S. Sandberg
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2019, Volume 488, Page 61
[3]
Gabriel Lima-Oliveira, Denis Monneret, Fabrice Guerber, and Gian Cesare Guidi
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2018, Page 1
[4]
Jennifer Taher, Jake Cosme, Brian A. Renley, David J. Daghfal, and Paul M. Yip
Clinical Biochemistry, 2018
[5]
Bente Flatland, Melinda S. Camus, and Randolph M. Baral
Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 2018
[6]
Elena Aloisio, Assunta Carnevale, Sara Pasqualetti, Sarah Birindelli, Alberto Dolci, and Mauro Panteghini
Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2018, Volume 71, Number 9, Page 851
[7]
Mesude Falay, Mehmet Senes, Selcuk Korkmaz, Turan Turhan, Murat Okay, Berna Afacan Öztürk, Doğan Yücel, and Gulsum Ozet
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 2018
[8]
Anna Carobene, Elena Guerra, Massimo Locatelli, Vito Cucchiara, Alberto Briganti, Aasne K. Aarsand, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Pilar Fernandez-Calle, Thomas Røraas, Sverre Sandberg, Niels Jonker, and Ferruccio Ceriotti
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2018, Volume 486, Page 185
[9]
Yesim Ozarda, Ken Sikaris, Thomas Streichert, and Joseph Macri
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2018, Page 1
[11]
Peter J Selby, Rosamonde E Banks, Walter Gregory, Jenny Hewison, William Rosenberg, Douglas G Altman, Jonathan J Deeks, Christopher McCabe, Julie Parkes, Catharine Sturgeon, Douglas Thompson, Maureen Twiddy, Janine Bestall, Joan Bedlington, Tilly Hale, Jacqueline Dinnes, Marc Jones, Andrew Lewington, Michael P Messenger, Vicky Napp, Alice Sitch, Sudeep Tanwar, Naveen S Vasudev, Paul Baxter, Sue Bell, David A Cairns, Nicola Calder, Neil Corrigan, Francesco Del Galdo, Peter Heudtlass, Nick Hornigold, Claire Hulme, Michelle Hutchinson, Carys Lippiatt, Tobias Livingstone, Roberta Longo, Matthew Potton, Stephanie Roberts, Sheryl Sim, Sebastian Trainor, Matthew Welberry Smith, James Neuberger, Douglas Thorburn, Paul Richardson, John Christie, Neil Sheerin, William McKane, Paul Gibbs, Anusha Edwards, Naeem Soomro, Adebanji Adeyoju, Grant D Stewart, and David Hrouda
Programme Grants for Applied Research, 2018, Volume 6, Number 3, Page 1
[12]
Wytze P. Oosterhuis and Abdurrahman Coskun
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 2
[13]
[14]
Sten Westgard, Hassan Bayat, and James O Westgard
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 2
[15]
Yong Xia, Hao Xue, Cunliang Yan, Bowen Li, ShuQiong Zhang, Mingyang Li, and Ling Ji
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 2
[16]
Xiuzhi Guo, Tianjiao Zhang, Xuehui Gao, Pengchang Li, Tingting You, Qiong Wu, Jie Wu, Fang Zhao, Liangyu Xia, Ermu Xu, Ling Qiu, and Xinqi Cheng
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 2
[18]
María Luisa Lopez-Regalado, Luis Martínez-Granados, Antonio González-Utor, Nereyda Ortiz, Miriam Iglesias, Manuel Ardoy, and Jose A. Castilla
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2018
[19]
Dae-Hyun Ko, Sung Woo Lee, Jungwon Hyun, Hyun Soo Kim, Min-Jeong Park, and Dong Hoon Shin
Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Volume 38, Number 5, Page 420
[21]
Martin Boegemann, Christian Arsov, Boris Hadaschik, Kathleen Herkommer, Florian Imkamp, Jerzy-Roch Nofer, Joachim Gerß, Peter Albers, and Axel Semjonow
The International Journal of Biological Markers, 2018, Page 172460081875475
[22]
Jan S. Krouwer
Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2018
[23]
Anthony Orzechowski, Victoria Petrides, and Richard Scopp
Clinical Biochemistry, 2018
[24]
Michael Paal, Alexander Lang, Georg Hennig, Marie-Luise Buchholtz, Ronald Sroka, and Michael Vogeser
Clinical Biochemistry, 2018
[28]
Aasne K. Aarsand, Thomas Røraas, William A. Bartlett, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Anna Carobene, Pilar Fernandez-Calle, Niels Jonker, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Federica Braga, and Sverre Sandberg
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2018, Volume 0, Number 0
[29]
Mary B. Nabity, Kendal E. Harr, Melinda S. Camus, Bente Flatland, and Linda M. Vap
Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 2018
[31]
Piero Cappelletti
La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2018
[32]
A. Molina, L. Guiñon, A. Perez, A. Segurana, J. L. Bedini, J. C. Reverter, and A. Merino
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 2018
[33]
Elena Aloisio, Assunta Carnevale, Sara Pasqualetti, Sarah Birindelli, Alberto Dolci, and Mauro Panteghini
Clinical Biochemistry, 2018
[34]
John D. Olson, Ian Jennings, Piet Meijer, Chantal Bon, Roslyn Bonar, Emmanuel J. Favaloro, Russell A. Higgins, Michael Keeney, Joy Mammen, Richard A. Marlar, Roland Meley, Sukesh C. Nair, William L. Nichols, Anne Raby, Joan C. Reverter, Alok Srivastava, and Isobel Walker
Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, 2018, Volume 29, Number 1, Page 111
[36]
[37]
Yuhong Yue, Shunli Zhang, Zhenzhen Xu, Xi Chen, and Qingtao Wang
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 141, Number 10, Page 1421
[38]
Julia González Cantó, Sara Esteve Poblador, and Mario Ortuño Alonso
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2017
[39]
Tingting Li, Wei Wang, Haijian Zhao, Falin He, Kun Zhong, Shuai Yuan, and Zhiguo Wang
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2017, Page e22324
[40]
Mark Mackay, Gabe Hegedus, and Tony Badrick
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017
[41]
Mario Plebani and Laura Sciacovelli
Journal of Medical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 36, Number 3
[42]
M. Buttarello, A. Rauli, and G. Mezzapelle
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 2017
[43]
Elvar Theodorsson and Bertil Magnusson
Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2017
[44]
Jun Xia, Su-feng Chen, Fei Xu, and Yong-lie Zhou
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2017, Page e22284
[45]
Aurore Desmons, Stéphane Jaisson, Nathalie Leroy, Philippe Gillery, and Emmanuelle Guillard
Biochemia Medica, 2017, Volume 27, Number 2, Page 378
[46]
Magdalena Krintus, Mario Plebani, and Mauro Panteghini
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 547
[47]
Jan S. Krouwer
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2017, Page 193229681770292
[49]
Laura Sciacovelli, Ada Aita, and Mario Plebani
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 632
[50]
Sara Pasqualetti, Federica Braga, and Mauro Panteghini
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 587
[51]
Paulo Pereira and Jerard Seghatchian
Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 2017, Volume 56, Number 2, Page 103
[52]
Ning Tang, Xi Jin, Ziyong Sun, and Cui Jian
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2017, Volume 77, Number 2, Page 98
[53]
Kathleen P. Freeman and Bente Flatland
Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 2017, Volume 46, Number 1, Page 5
[54]
[55]
Janne Cadamuro, Ana-Maria Simundic, Eva Ajzner, and Sverre Sandberg
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 579
[56]
Mette F Møller, Tove R Søndergaard, Helle T Kristensen, and Anna-Marie B Münster
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Page 000456321667403
[57]
Nuthar Jassam, Cas Weykamp, Annette Thomas, Sandra Secchiero, Laura Sciacovelli, Mario Plebani, Marc Thelen, Christa Cobbaert, Carmen Perich, Carmen Ricós, Faria A Paula, and Julian H Barth
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 54, Number 3, Page 386
[58]
Jenny Stiller, Anne-Katherine Jasensky, Mark Hennies, Ralf Einspanier, and Barbara Kohn
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 2016, Volume 28, Number 3, Page 235
[59]
James O Westgard and Sten A Westgard
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Volume 53, Number 1, Page 32
[60]
Maynika V. Rastogi, Paul Ladenson, David E. Goldstein, and Randie R. Little
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2016, Volume 10, Number 3, Page 768
[61]
James O. Westgard and Sten A. Westgard
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 37, Number 1, Page 85
[62]
James O. Westgard and Sten A. Westgard
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 37, Number 1, Page 1
[63]
Mario Plebani, Laura Sciacovelli, and Ada Aita
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 37, Number 1, Page 187
[64]
Angel Salas, Carmen Ricós, Enrique Prada, Francisco Ramón, Jorge Morancho, Josep M. Jou, and Raquel Blazquez
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 37, Number 1, Page 73
[65]
Tingting Li, Wei Wang, Haijian Zhao, Falin He, Kun Zhong, Shuai Yuan, and Zhiguo Wang
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2016
[66]
Mai Thi Chi Tran, KienTrung Hoang, and Ronda F. Greaves
Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Volume 49, Number 16-17, Page 1259
[67]
Andrew C. Don-Wauchope
Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Volume 49, Number 16-17, Page 1211
[68]
Federica Braga and Mauro Panteghini
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2016, Volume 53, Number 5, Page 313
[69]
Nora Nikolac, Ivana Celap, Petra Filipi, Marina Hemar, Marija Kocijancic, Marijana Miler, Ana-Maria Simundic, Vesna Supak Smolcic, and Alen Vrtaric
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2016, Volume 54, Number 3
[70]
James O. Westgard
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2016, Volume 54, Number 2
[71]
Wytze P. Oosterhuis and Elvar Theodorsson
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2016, Volume 54, Number 2
[72]
Mario Plebani
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2016, Volume 53, Number 3, Page 184
[73]
F. Marques-Garcia, M.F. Garcia-Codesal, M.R. Caro-Narros, and T. Contreras-SanFeliciano
Revista de Calidad Asistencial, 2015, Volume 30, Number 6, Page 302
[74]
R. Blázquez-Sánchez, J. Venero-López, E. Paniagua-Arribas, D. Pérez-Torrella, M. Duque-Duniol, and M.P. Relea-Sarabia
Revista de Calidad Asistencial, 2015, Volume 30, Number 6, Page 335
[75]
Won-Ki Min, Dae-Hyun Ko, Eun Jung Cho, Tae-Dong Jeong, Woochang Lee, Sail Chun, and Han-Ik Cho
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2015, Volume 451, Page 175
[77]
Federica Braga, Ilenia Infusino, and Mauro Panteghini
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2015, Volume 53, Number 6

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in