Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 22, 2016

Peer groups splitting in Croatian EQA scheme: a trade-off between homogeneity and sample size number

  • Jelena Vlašić Tanasković EMAIL logo , Wim Coucke , Jasna Leniček Krleža and Jadranka Vuković Rodriguez

Abstract

Background:

Laboratory evaluation through external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is often performed as ‘peer group’ comparison under the assumption that matrix effects influence the comparisons between results of different methods, for analytes where no commutable materials with reference value assignment are available. With EQA schemes that are not large but have many available instruments and reagent options for same analyte, homogenous peer groups must be created with adequate number of results to enable satisfactory statistical evaluation. We proposed a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)-based test to evaluate heterogeneity of peer groups within the Croatian EQA biochemistry scheme and identify groups where further splitting might improve laboratory evaluation.

Methods:

EQA biochemistry results were divided according to instruments used per analyte and the MANOVA test was used to verify statistically significant differences between subgroups. The number of samples was determined by sample size calculation ensuring a power of 90% and allowing the false flagging rate to increase not more than 5%. When statistically significant differences between subgroups were found, clear improvement of laboratory evaluation was assessed before splitting groups.

Results:

After evaluating 29 peer groups, we found strong evidence for further splitting of six groups. Overall improvement of 6% reported results were observed, with the percentage being as high as 27.4% for one particular method.

Conclusions:

Defining maximal allowable differences between subgroups based on flagging rate change, followed by sample size planning and MANOVA, identifies heterogeneous peer groups where further splitting improves laboratory evaluation and enables continuous monitoring for peer group heterogeneity within EQA schemes.

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

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. 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. Dallas JG. Analytical performance specifications for EQA schemes – need for harmonisation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:919–24.10.1515/cclm-2014-1268Search in Google Scholar

2. Miller WG, Jones GR, Horowitz GL, Weykamp C. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. Clin Chem 2011;57:1670–80.10.1373/clinchem.2011.168641Search in Google Scholar

3. Plebani M. External quality assessment programs: past, present and future. Jugosl Med Biohemija 2005;24:201–6.10.2298/JMH0503201PSearch in Google Scholar

4. Miller WG. Specimen materials, target values and commutability for external quality assessment (proficiency testing) schemes. Clin Chim Acta 2003;327:25–37.10.1016/S0009-8981(02)00370-4Search in Google Scholar

5. Stepman HC, Tiikkainen U, Stockl D, Vesper HW, Edwards SH, Laitinen H, et al. Measurements for 8 common analytes in native sera identify inadequate standardization among 6 routine laboratory assays. Clin Chem 2014;60:855–63.10.1373/clinchem.2013.220376Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. Flegar-Meštrić Z, Nazor A, Parag G, Sikirica M, Perkov S, Juretić D. Analytical goal-setting in external quality assessment for medical biochemistry laboratories in the Republic of Croatia (Ciljevi analitičke kvalitete u vanjskoj procjeni kvalitete rada medicinsko-biokemijskih laboratorija u Republici Hrvatskoj). Biochem Medica 2005;15:15–25.Search in Google Scholar

7. O’Brien RG, Muller KE. Unified power analysis for t-tests through multivariate hypotheses. In: Edwards L, editor. Applied analysis of variance in behavioral science. CRC Press, 1993:297–344.Search in Google Scholar

8. Olson CL. Practical considerations in choosing a MANOVA test statistic: a rejoinder to Stevens. Psychol Bull 1979;86:1350–2.10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1350Search in Google Scholar

9. Olson CL. On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychol Bull 1976;83:579.10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.579Search in Google Scholar

10. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:833–5.10.1515/cclm-2015-0067Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Koumantakis G. Traceability of measurement results. Clin Biochem Rev 2008;29(Suppl 1):S61–6.Search in Google Scholar

12. Ceriotti F. The role of external quality assessment schemes in monitoring and improving the standardization process. Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:77–81.10.1016/j.cca.2013.12.032Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Koerbin G, Tate JR, Ryan J, Jones GR, Sikaris KA, Kanowski D, et al. Bias assessment of general chemistry analytes using commutable samples. Clin Biochem Rev 2014;35:203.Search in Google Scholar

14. Schlebusch H, Axer K, Schneider C, Liappis N, Röhle G. Comparison of five routine methods with the candidate reference method for the determination of bilirubin in neonatal serum. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem Z Für Klin Chem Klin Biochem 1990;28:203–10.10.1515/cclm.1990.28.4.203Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. International Bureau of Weights and Measures. JCTLM database: laboratory medicine and in vitro diagnostics: database of higher order reference materials and reference measurement procedures. Available from: http://www.bipm.org/jctlm/. Accessed: 1 Jun 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-4-8
Accepted: 2016-7-29
Published Online: 2016-9-22
Published in Print: 2017-3-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 19.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2016-0284/html
Scroll to top button