1 / 41

Method Selection and Evaluation

Method Selection and Evaluation. D. Kefaya EL- Sayed Mohamed Prof. Of Clinical Pathology (Clinical Chemistry), Mansoura University. Before a new test or methodogy is introduced into the laboratory. both managerial and techinal information must be compiled and carefully considered.

odin
Download Presentation

Method Selection and Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Method Selection and Evaluation D. Kefaya EL- Sayed Mohamed Prof. Of Clinical Pathology (Clinical Chemistry), Mansoura University

  2. Before a new test or methodogy is introduced into the laboratory. both managerial and techinal information must be compiled and carefully considered. The information should be collected from many different sources,including manufacturer sales representatives,colleagues,scientific presentations,and the scientific literature.

  3. Linear range:

  4. O.D 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 200 400 600 800 Glucose concentration (mg/dl)

  5. Observed value True value X µ RE SE TE

  6. Inaccuracy: • The difference between a measured value and its true value. • Is due to the presence of systematic analytical error (S.E.) • S.E.can be constant or proportional .

  7. Test Values 30 Constant E Ideal Proprtional E 0 30 Reference Values

  8. Inaccuracy • Can be estimated from three studies: • recovery . • interference . • a comparison-of-methods study

  9. Example of a recovery study Sample preparation Sample 1:2.0 ml serum + 0.1 ml H2O Sample 2:2.0 ml serum +0.1 ml 20 mg /dl calcium standard Sample 3:2.0 ml serum +0.1 ml 50 mg /dl calcium standard Concentration Calcium measured added Recovered Recovery Sample 1 7.50mg/dl Sample 2 8.35mg/dl 0.95mg/dl 0.85mg/dl 89% Sample 3 9.79mg/dl 2.38mg/dl 2.29mg/dl 96%

  10. Calculation of recovery Concentration added = standard concentration x Ml standard Ml standard + ml serum = 20 x 0.1 = 20x 1 = 20 = 0.95 (Sample2) 2+0.1 2.1x10 21 conc. recovered = conc. ( diluted test) – conc. ( baseline) = 8.35-7.5=0.85 recovery = Conc. Recovered = x100% Conc. added = 0.85 x 100 = 89 % ( sample 2) 0.95

  11. ( b )Interference: • The interference experiment is used to measure systematic errors caused by substances other than the analyte

  12. Interference: • An interfering material can cause systematic errors in one of two ways : • The material itself may react with the analytical reagents. • Or it may alter the reaction between the analyte and the analytical reagents

  13. Interference: • The interference likes recovery except that the substance suspected of interference is added to the patient sample. • The concentration of the potentially interfering material should be in the maximally elevated range. • If an effect is observed its concentration should be lowered to discover the concentration at which test resultes are frist invalidated

  14. Example of an Interference study Sample preparation Sample 1 : 1.0 ml serum + 0.1 ml H2O (base line) Sample 2 : 1.0 ml serum + 0.1 ml of 10 mg/dl magnesium standard Sample 3 : 1.0 ml serum + 0.1 ml of 20 mg/dl magnesium standard Calcium Measured Magnesium added Interference Sample 1 9.80mg/dl Sample 2 10.53 mg/dl 0.91mg/dl 0.73mg/dl Sample 2 11.48 mg/dl 1.81mg/dl 1.68mg/dl

  15. Calculation of interference Concentration added = standard concentration x = 10x 0.1 = 10 = 0..91mg/dl (sample2) 1.1 11 Interference = conc. ( diluted ) – conc. ( baseline) = 10.53 – 9.8 =0.73 (sample2) ml standard ml standard + ml serum

  16. Common interferences (eg., hemoglobin, lipids,bilirubin,anticoagulants preservatives, and so on)also should be tested. • Glick and Ryder have presented " interferographs " for various chemistry instruments – these are graphs relating analyte concentration measured versus interferent concentration

  17. ( C ) comparison – of methouds Experiment: • The best comparative method that can be used is the reference method , which is a method with negligible inaccuracy in comparison with its imprecision .

  18. Reference methods may be laborious and time- consuming Because most laboratories are not staffed and equipped to perform reference methods, the results of the test method are usually compared with those of the method routinely in use.

  19. Westgard et al27 and the NCCLS35 recommend that at least 40 sample and preferably 100 samples, be run by botli methods. • span the clinical range • represent many different pathologic conditions. • Duplicate analyses of each sample by each method.

  20. If 40 specimens are compared , two to five patient specimens should be analyzed daily for a minimum of 8 days. • If 100 specimens are compared the comparison study should be carried out during the 20-day replication study.

  21. Test method Regression line Reference

  22. Example of Method selection and evaluation (Glucose in Serum) Analytical Needs :- Rapid procedure is needed at time out side the regular working hours. Sample Volume of 0.2 ml or less Analytical range of 0.0 to 500.0 mg/dl. Turn arround time 30 min.or less is needed

  23. Quality goals:- The medical decision levels of interest are: • 50 (hypoglycemia) • 200 mg/dl (hyperglycemia) • The decision level for screening is 140mg/dl is not needed. Precision goals are 1.5 mg/dl at 50 mg/dl 5.0mg/dl at 200 mg/dl Total error goals (TEA) are 6.0 mg/dl at 50.0mg/dl 20.0mg/dl at 200.0 mg/dl

  24. Method selection :- • In kit form • Can be set up on an existing laboratory instrument • Requirements:- • Primary reference solutions are prepared for calibration • Control materials • Randomly selected clinical specimen.

  25. Within – Run Precision : • Analyze 20 aliquots of low abnormal control mean ±SD 56.5 mg/dl ± 0.7 • Analyze 20 aliquots of moderatly high control mean ± SD 182.6 ±2.1 mg/dl • SDs are less than the allowable error in non automated procedure .

  26. Day to Day precision: • Two Q.C pools are analyzed for 20 days mean ± SD • SD :1.5 mg /50 mg glucose 5.0 mg/200mg glucose

  27. Analytical Range :- • Glucose solutions prepared from a stock glucose reference solution of 1000mg/dl • Duplicate analyses • The plot shows excellent linearity to 600mg/dl. which meets the specification for linearity to 500mg/dl. • The absorbance at zero glucose concentration is the reagent blank value

  28. O.D 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 200 400 600 800 Glucose concentration (mg/dl)

  29. Recovery:- • Two pooled sera are perpared as baseline specimens 61mg/dl ,171mg/dl • concentrated glucose solution is prepared (10,000mg/dl) • two different amounts of glucose are added to 9.6 ml of pooled sera

  30. Recovery:-

  31. Quadruplicate assays of A and B are performed and take the mean • Subtract the original (basal) glucose levels (61,171) from the mean of each quadruplicate Recovered glucose • Recovery % = • Proportional error = 100- recovery% Recovered glucose Glucose added X100

  32. Recovery:-

  33. Interference: • The potential interference of visible abnormal specimens is tested by: Aanalyzing a series of icteric , turbid,and hemolyzed sera using the new method and an established method know to be free of such interferenc

  34. The difference ( ) the two methods are 1 – 4 mg which is less than the allowable TEA. B add a small amount of highly concentrated solutions to pooled sera e.g. Ascorbic acid , sod. Salicylate, Trisodium citrate, Heparin, disod. EDTA. • The difference must be < TEA.

  35. Interference:

More Related