Annals of Clinical Biochemistry > Volume 45, Number 1 > Pp. 76-82

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gould, N Articles by Andrieux, L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original Article

The commutability of external quality assurance serum and reference serum materials between the VITROS^® Albumin Slide and four other routine albumin methods

N Gould ¹ , J Møller ² and L Andrieux ¹

¹ Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics European Support Centre, 24 Boulevard Sebastien Brant BP30335, 67411 Illkirch, France; ² Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, DK-8000 Aarhus N, Denmark

Corresponding author: Dr N Gould. Email: ngould{at}ocdfr.jnj.com

Background: Between-method differences in external quality assurance schemes (EQAS) are assumed to be indicative of between-method differences in results for fresh diagnostic serum samples. However, this assumption is only valid if the EQAS fluid is shown to be commutable between methods with the fresh human samples. Using fresh human serum samples, we studied the commutability of six UK National EQAS (UKNEQAS) samples and two reference serum preparations using five methods for the measurement of albumin.

Methods: The VITROS^® Albumin Slide was compared with two liquid reagent bromocresol green-based methods and two immunoturbidimetric methods. Thirty fresh human serum samples, six UKNEQAS samples and two reference materials were analysed over a period of five days by all methods. The reference materials were: a certified protein reference material, CRM470 (protein reference preparation) and the Scandinavian NFKK Reference Serum X.

Results: A concentration-dependent tendency towards non-commutability was seen for the six UKNEQAS samples. Two of the methods recovered the CRM470 above the upper limit of the expected range and the remaining three were within the expected range.

Conclusions: Assessment of commutability is important in the investigation of between-method differences in EQAS. External quality assurance and reference materials should have been demonstrated to be commutable and be available at multiple concentrations, before they may be considered appropriate for the assessment of accuracy.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?