Cited by 69Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHealthcare Quality and ManagementScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Revision of the “Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations – Rili-BAEK” (unauthorized translation)

Open access
·2015·LaboratoriumsMedizin

Abstract

In November 2007, the previous version of the Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations -Rili-BAEKwas approved by the Executive Board of the German Medical Association and published in the spring of 2008 in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt -the German Medical Association's official international bilingual science journal.At that time, the Guideline comprised Chapter A, Part B1 and Chapter C, D and E, thus specifying basic requirements for quality assurance in medical laboratory examinations and requirements for conducting external quality assurance programmes.In subsequent years, additions were made to the guideline designated Parts B2, B3, B4 and B5.Also, Expert Groups for these respective parts were installed to supervise and further develop the external quality assurance programmes.In 2013, the Expert Groups instituted according to the Rili-BAEK undertook another revision of the entire guideline and prepared a new, linguistically consolidated version.A few additions were made in Chapter A in the definition of terms, and the tables for Parts B1 and B5 were updated.The Executive Board of the German Medical Association decided to publish the consolidated version in its entirety in order to create a quotable text. Berlin, August 2014The German Medical Association (BAEK) has been informed of this translation of the Rili-BAEK guideline into English, and it is being done with the chamber's approval.The original publication in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt (German Medical Journal) remains the basis for a legally compliant application of the Rili-BAEK guideline in Germany. Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory ExaminationsAs per the decision by the Executive Board of the German Medical

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/labmed-2014-0046

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Verification of trueness and precision of both reference measurement procedures was performed during the experimental phase by regular internal and external quality control measurements.

    “As required by Rili-BÄK,17 the Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations, verification of trueness and precision of both reference measurement procedures was performed during the experimental phase by regular internal and external quality control measurements.”

    From System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015 (2020) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 8, “Internal and external quality assurance” (page not provided), requires internal controls and regular participation in external quality assessment programmes. The guideline also defines trueness and precision, but the cited passages do not require verification of both reference measurement procedures by those controls or document what was done during the citing study’s experimental phase. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The relevant quality criteria were considered for the creatinine and cystatin C assays.

    “The relevant quality criteria were considered (24).”

    From A Method to Combine Neurofilament Light Measurements From Blood Serum and Plasma in Clinical and Population-Based Studies (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

    Table B1a gives permissible deviations and applicable concentration intervals for creatinine in plasma, serum, or whole blood; Table B1b gives corresponding criteria for urine creatinine. The passages do not identify cystatin C-specific criteria, and this guideline cannot establish whether the citing authors actually considered the criteria in their assays. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Venue
LaboratoriumsMedizin
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
26-69
ISSN
  • 0342-3026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0477
OpenAlex
W4238974272
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Laboratory Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
quality assurance, German Medical Association, laboratory accreditation, guideline revision

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