Consensus on the analysis quality goal of clinical laboratories（Ⅱ）

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2016.02.001

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to ensure the determination quality in clinical laboratories and meet the requirements of patients and clinicians, experts had been dedicated to establishing analysis performance specifications for a long time. In 1999, 5 grades for quality indicators were identified at the Stockholm consensus conference. In 2014, the second meeting of European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine （EFLM） was opened in Milan,Italy, and the consensus statement on the Stockholm consensus conference was modified. The original classification （5 grades） was simplified into 3 grades.

Key words: Analytical performance quality indicator, Clinical outcome, Biological variation, Operation level

CLC Number:

R446.1

FENG Renfeng. Consensus on the analysis quality goal of clinical laboratories（Ⅱ）[J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2016, 31(2): 83-86.

References 18

[1]	PANTEGHINI S,SANDBERG S.Defining analytical performance specifications 15 years after the Stockholm conference[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):829-832.
[2]	KALLNER A,MCQUEEN M,HEUCK C.The Stockholm Consensus Conference on quality specifications in laboratory medicine,25-26 April 1999[J]. Scand J Clin Lab Invest,1999,59(7):475-476.
[3]	FRASER CG.The 1999 Stockholm Consensus Conference on quality specifications in laboratory medicine[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):837-840.
[4]	HORVATH AR,BOSSUYT PM,SANDBERG S,et al.Setting analytical performance specifications based on outcome studies- is it possible[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):841-848.
[5]	THUE G,SANDBERG S.Analytical performance specifications based on how clinicians use laboratory tests. Experiences from a post-analytical external quality assessment programme[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):857-862.
[6]	RICÓS C,ÁLVAREZ V,PERICH C,et al. Rationale for using data on biological variation[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):863-870.
[7]	CAROBENE A.Reliability of biological variation data available in an online database: need for improvement[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):871-877.
[8]	BARTLETT WA,BRAGA F,CAROBENE A,et al.A checklist for critical appraisal of studies of biological variation[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):879-885.
[9]	HAECKEL R,WOSNIOK W,STREICHERT T.Optimizing the use of the "state-of-the-art" performance criteria[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):887-891.
[10]	ORTH M.Are regulation-driven performance criteria still acceptable? - The German point of view[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):893-898.
[11]	SCHIMMEL H,ZEGERS I.Performance criteria for reference measurement procedures and reference materials[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):899-904.
[12]	BRAGA F,INFUSINO I,PANTEGHINI M.Performance criteria for combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):905-912.
[13]	CERIOTTI F,BRUGNONI D,MATTIOLI S.How to define a significant deviation from the expected internal quality control result[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):913-918.
[14]	OOSTERHUIS WP,SANDBERG S.Proposal for the modification of the conventional model for establishing performance specifications[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):925-937.
[15]	NORDIN G.Before defining performance criteria we must agree on what a "qualitative test procedure" is[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):939-941.
[16]	PLEBANI M,SCIACOVELLI L,AITA A,et al.Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):943-948.
[17]	SIKARIS K.Performance criteria of the post-analytical phase[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):949-958.
[18]	SANDBERG S,FRASER CG,HORVATH AR,et al.Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2015,53(6):833-835.