The quality of an analytical method developed is always appraised in terms of suitability for its intended purpose, recovery, requirement for standardization, sensitivity, analyte stability, ease of analysis, skill subset required, time and cost in that order. It is highly imperative to establish through a systematic process that the analytical method under question is acceptable for its intended purpose. Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) are two important performance characteristics in method validation. LOD and LOQ are terms used to describe the smallest concentration of an analyte that can be reliably measured by an analytical procedure. There has often been a lack of agreement within the clinical laboratory field as to the terminology best suited to describe this parameter. Likewise, there have been various methods for estimating it. The presented review provides information relating to the calculation of the limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Brief information about differences in various regulatory agencies about these parameters is also presented here.
Key words:Detection limit, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, quantitation limit, methods for determination of LOD and LOQ Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) parameters are related but have distinct definitions and should not be confused. The intent is to define the smallest concentration of analyte that can be detected with no guarantee about the bias or imprecision of the result by an assay, the concentration at which quantitation as defined by bias and precision goals is feasible, and finally the
through a 5-6 cm suprapubic incision. Second, a different surgical team exteriorized the bowel through this incision and created a neobladder extracorporeally. Third, the neobladder was internalized, the incision closed and the primary surgeon completed the urethro-neovesical anastomosis with robotic assistance.
RESULTSRRCP was carried out in 14 men and three women by the primary surgeon (M.M.). The form of urinary reconstruction was ileal conduit in three, a W-pouch with a serosallined tunnel in 10, a double-chimney or a Tpouch with a serosal-lined tunnel in two each. The mean operative duration for robotic radical cystectomy, ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder were 140, 120 and 168 min, respectively. The mean blood loss was <150 mL. The number of lymph nodes removed was 4-27, with one patient having N1 disease. The margins of resection were free of tumour in all patients.
CONCLUSIONSWe developed a technique for nerve-sparing RRCP using the da Vinci system which allows precise and rapid removal of the bladder with minimal blood loss. The bowel segment can be exteriorized and the most complex form of orthotopic bladder can be created through the incision used to deliver the cystectomy specimen. Performing this part of the operation extracorporeally reduced the operative duration.
A structured approach minimizes complications during the establishment of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program. Robotic assistance helps skilled "open" surgeons learn the technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.