Cited by 68Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationAnalytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals

Validation and verification of measurement methods in clinical chemistry

Theodorsson, Elvar·2012·Bioanalysis

Abstract

The present overview of validation and verification procedures in clinical chemistry focuses on the use of harmonized concepts and nomenclature, fitness-for-purpose evaluations and procedures for minimizing overall measurement and diagnostic uncertainty. The need for mutually accepted validation procedures in all fields of bioanalysis becomes obvious when they implement international accreditation and certification standards or their equivalents. The guide on bioanalytical method validation published by the US FDA in 2001 represents a sensible compromise between thoroughness and cost-effectiveness. Lacking comprehensive international agreements in the field, this document has also been successfully adapted in other fields of bioanalysis. European and international efforts aiming for consensus in the entire field of bioanalysis are currently being made. Manufacturers of highly automated in vitro diagnostic methods provide the majority of measurement methods used in unmodified in clinical chemistry. Validated by the manufacturers for their intended use and fitness-for-purpose, they need to be verified in the circumstances of the end-users. As yet, there is unfortunately no general agreement on the extent of the verification procedures needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4155/bio.11.311

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Knowledge of data from full diagnostic evaluation of medical tests in practical health care will probably continue to be preferred to uncertainty estimates, despite them being complementary.

    “It is probable that knowledge of data from full diagnostic evaluation 75 of medical tests [88][89][90] in practical health care will continue to be preferred to uncertainty estimates despite them being complementary.”

    From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [75]

  • Natural patient samples are commutable by definition and in practice, whereas stabilized control materials may or may not be commutable.

    “Natural patient samples are commutable 75 by definition and in practice, whereas stabilized control materials may or may not be commutable.”

    From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [75]

  • Even after the advent of accreditation standards ISO 17025 and 15189 demanding uncertainty calculations, top-down variance component analysis used in error/frequentist statistics are commonly used for uncertainty estimation using internal quality control samples.

    “Even after the advent of accreditation standards ISO 17025 and 15189 demanding uncertainty calculations, top-down variance component analysis used in error/frequentist statistics are commonly used for uncertainty estimation using internal quality control samples.75,76”

    From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [75]

  • Split sample methods are laborious in the absence of effective computerized systems but convenient when properly implemented.

    “Split sample methods are laborious in the absence of effective computerized systems, but convenient when properly implemented.75,85”

    From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [75]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Theodorsson, E.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Theodorsson, Elvar
Venue
Bioanalysis
Published
2012-02
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
305-320
ISSN
  • 1757-6180 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-6199
OpenAlex
W2109371353
Cited by
68
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioanalysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
The County Council of Östergötland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
Keywords
method validation, method verification, clinical chemistry, bioanalytical method validation, FDA guidance, fitness for purpose, measurement uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty, international accreditation standards
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Reproducibility of Results, Clinical Chemistry Tests, Uncertainty, Validation Studies as Topic, Limit of Detection

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