Cited by 10Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Status of internal quality control for thyroid hormones immunoassays from 2011 to 2016 in China

Open access
Zhang, Shishi, Wang, Wei, Zhao, Haijian, He, Falin, Zhong, Kun, Yuan, Shuai, Wang, Zhiguo·2018·Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

Abstract

Background: Internal quality control (IQC) plays a key role in the evaluation of precision performance in clinical laboratories. This report aims to present precision status of thyroid hormones immunoassays from 2011 to 2016 in China. Methods: Through Clinet‐EQA reporting system, IQC information of Triiodothyronine and Thyroxine in the form of free and total (FT3, TT3, FT4, TT4), as well as Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) were collected from participant laboratories submitting IQC data in February, 2011‐2016. For each analyte, current CVs were compared among different years and measurement systems. Percentages of laboratories meeting five allowable imprecision specifications (pass rates) were also calculated. Analysis of IQC practice was conducted to constitute a complete report. Results: Current CVs were decreasing significantly but pass rates increasing only for FT3 during 6 years. FT3, TT3, FT4, and TT4 had the highest pass rates comparing with 1/3TEa imprecision specification but TSH had this comparing with minimum imprecision specification derived from biological variation. Constituent ratios of four mainstream measurement systems changed insignificantly. In 2016, precision performance of Abbott and Roche systems were better than Beckman and Siemens systems for all analytes except FT3 had Siemens also better than Beckman. Analysis of IQC practice demonstrated wide variation and great progress in aspects of IQC rules and control frequency. Conclusion: With change of IQC practice, only FT3 had precision performance improved in 6 years. However, precision status of five analytes in China was still unsatisfying. Ongoing investigation and improvement of IQC have yet to be achieved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcla.22154

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 13 · Cited by 10

Authors
Zhang, S., Wang, W., Zhao, H., He, F., Zhong, K., Yuan, S., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Beijing Hospital (CN)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-15
Volume
32
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0887-8013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2825
OpenAlex
W2589101326
Cited by
10
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (7143182)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
internal quality control, assay precision, coefficient of variation, free triiodothyronine, total triiodothyronine, free thyroxine, total thyroxine, thyroid-stimulating hormone, biological variation, method comparison, control frequency, China
MeSH terms
China, Humans, Immunoassay, Quality Control, Thyroid Hormones, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review