Status of internal quality control for thyroid hormones immunoassays from 2011 to 2016 in China
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
State-of-the-art APS can be derived from evaluation and comparison of laboratory methods or from peer comparison data from proficiency testing programs.
“Alternatively, the state-of-the-art APS can be derived from the evaluation and comparison of laboratory methods99–104 or using peer comparison data from proficiency testing programs.105–107”
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
- PMC
- PMC6817077
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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