Comparison between polynomial regression and weighted least squares regression analysis for verification of analytical measurement range.
analytical measurement range
linearity
polynomial regression
verification
weighted least-squares regression
Journal
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
ISSN: 1437-4331
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem Lab Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9806306
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 06 2022
27 06 2022
Historique:
received:
06
01
2022
accepted:
22
04
2022
pubmed:
10
5
2022
medline:
26
5
2022
entrez:
9
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recently, the linearity evaluation protocol by the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has been revised from EP6-A to EP6-ED2, with the statistical method of interpreting linearity evaluation data being changed from polynomial regression to weighted least squares linear regression (WLS). We analyzed and compared the analytical measurement range (AMR) verification results according to the present and prior linearity evaluation guidelines. The verification of AMR of clinical chemistry tests was performed using five samples with two replicates in three different laboratories. After analyzing the same evaluation data in each laboratory by the polynomial regression analysis and WLS methods, results were compared to determine whether linearity was verified across the five sample concentrations. In addition, whether the 90% confidence interval of deviation from linearity by WLS was included in the allowable deviation from linearity (ADL) was compared. A linearity of 42.3-56.8% of the chemistry items was verified by polynomial regression analysis in three laboratories. For analysis of the same data by WLS, a linearity of 63.5-78.3% of the test items was verified where the deviation from linearity of all five samples was within the ADL criteria, and the cases where the 90% confidence interval of all deviation from linearity overlapped the ADL was 78.8-91.3%. Interpreting AMR verification data by the WLS method according to the newly revised CLSI document EP6-ED2 could reduce laboratory workload, enabling efficient laboratory practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35531706
pii: cclm-2022-0018
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2022-0018
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
989-994Informations de copyright
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Références
Killeen, AA, Long, T, Souers, R, Styer, P, Ventura, CB, Klee, GG. Verifying performance characteristics of quantitative analytical systems: calibration verification, linearity, and analytical measurement range. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1173–81. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0051-CP.
CLSI. Evaluation of the linearity of quantitative measurement procedures: a statistical approach; approved guideline. CLSI document EP06-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2003.
CLSI. Evaluation of linearity of quantitative measurement procedures, 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: CLSI Guideline EP06. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institutie; 2020.
Kroll, MH, Emancipator, K. A theoretical evaluation of linearity. Clin Chem 1993;39:405–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/39.3.405.
Emancipator, K, Kroll, MH. A quantitative measure of nonlinearity. Clin Chem 1993;39:766–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/39.5.766.
Jhang, JS, Chang, CC, Fink, DJ, Kroll, MH. Evaluation of linearity in the clinical laboratory. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:44–8. https://doi.org/10.5858/2004-128-44-EOLITC.
Webster, C, Coskun, A, Gonzales-Lao, E, Diaz-Garzon, J, Jonker, N, Minchinela, J, et al.. The EFLM biological variation database. Available from https://biologicalvariation.eu/ [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].
Desirable biological variation database specifications. Available from https://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].
Westgard, JO. Useful measures and models for analytical quality management in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:223–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0710.