Journal Information
Journal ID (publisher-id): BM
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Biochem Med (Zagreb)
Title: Biochemia Medica
Abbreviated Title: Biochem. Med. (Zagreb)
ISSN (print): 1330-0962
ISSN (electronic): 1846-7482
Publisher: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Article Information
Copyright statement: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Copyright: 2017, Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry
License (open-access):
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Date received: 03 December 2017
Date accepted: 01 May 2018
Publication date (print and electronic): 15 June 2018
Volume: 28
Issue: 2
Electronic Location Identifier: 020711
Publisher ID: bm-28-2-020711
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2018.020711
Comparison between Sigma metrics in four accredited Egyptian medical laboratories in some biochemical tests: an initiative towards sigma calculation harmonization
Introduction
Analytical quality is an essential requirement for best practice in any medical laboratory. Lack of a harmonized approach for sigma calculation is considered an obstacle in the objective comparability of analytical performance among laboratories adopting sigma metrics. It is urgently needed that all laboratory professionals interested in the analytical quality to work hard towards harmonization protocol for sigma calculation in order to properly select their analytical goals. This study aims at harmonization of Sigma metrics calculation in four accredited Egyptian laboratories.
Materials and methods
This observational cross sectional study compared the sigma levels for certain biochemical parameters in the four participating laboratories.
Results
Coefficient of variation (CV) and bias were determined for some biochemical analytes, data assayed by different automated analysers in the four different accredited laboratories. The sigma level for the four medical laboratories was calculated for each biomedical parameter with changed sigma level after total allowable error (Tea) unification among participating laboratories.
Conclusion
Each laboratory should select the TEa goal based on clear standardized criteria of selection without any subjective preferences as either under or over estimation of Sigma metrics will affect the patient centred care negatively if laboratories use quality control procedures wrongly based on incorrect Sigma metrics calculation with subsequent misleading medical decisions.
Keywords: sigma; bias; coefficient of variation; harmonization; total allowable error
