The goal of the Fourth International Workshop for Standardization of ICA Measurements was to determine the specificity of ICA assays and their ability to distinguish between control sera (n = 57) and sera from IDDM-related individuals--representing relatives of IDDM patients (n = 21), healthy individuals who later developed IDDM (n = 8), or newly diagnosed IDDM patients (n = 23). Results from 28 laboratories were analyzed. The mean specificity (percentage of control sera reported as negative) among 27 laboratories was 91%, including 6 laboratories with 100% specificity. Nevertheless, 78% of laboratories found at least one control sample > 0 JDF U. Among samples from first-degree relatives, the mean concordance was 86%, including three sera found negative (0 JDF U) by all laboratories. Among individuals who later developed diabetes, the mean concordance was 93%, with two sera found positive by 100% of laboratories. In sera from newly diagnosed IDDM patients, the mean concordance was 82%. Three sera were found positive and one serum negative by all laboratories. The JDF U of the sera considered to be positive were significantly greater than each laboratory's average for the controls. In conclusion, the results from laboratories participating in the Fourth International ICA Workshop demonstrated excellent specificity, good concordance, and an ability to separate control sera from defined, IDDM-related subjects.
Background: A biannual external quality assurance (EQA) scheme for flow cytometric CD34+ haematopoietic stem cell enumeration has been operational in the Benelux countries since 1996. In an evaluation of the results of 16 send-outs, we studied the effects of the methods used on assay outcome and whether or not this exercise was effective in reducing between-laboratory variation.Methods: Data were analyzed using robust multivariate regression. This approach is relatively insensitive to outliers and is used to assess the effect of methodological aspects of CD34+ cell counting on the bias and variability.Results: Five variables were associated with significant bias of absolute CD34+ cell counts: (i) unique laboratory number (ULN), (ii) gating strategy; (iii) CD34 mAb fluorochrome; (iv) type of flow cytometer, and (v) method of sample preparation. In addition, ULN and platform methodology (i.e., single vs. dual) contributed significantly to the variability of this assay. Overall, the variability in results of CD34+ cell enumeration has declined with time; in particular, after a practical workshop in which participants were trained to use the ''single platform ISHAGE protocol.'' Conclusions: Between-laboratory variation in CD34+ cell enumeration can be reduced by standardization of methodologies between centres. Our approach, i.e., EQA with targeted training and feedback in response to reported results, has been successful in reducing the variability of CD34+ cell enumeration between participants. q 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society
Report prepared by ~. Lernmark 1, J. L. Molenaar 2, W. A. M. van Beers 2' Y. Yamaguchi3; S. Nagataki 3' J. Ludvigsson 4 and N. K. Maclaren s on behalf of the Immunology and Diabetes Workshops and participating laboratories*
A biannual external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for flow cytometric lymphocyte immunophenotyping is operational in the Benelux countries since 1996. We studied the effects of the methods used on assay outcome, and whether or not this EQA exercise was effective in reducing between-laboratory variation. Eighty test samples were distributed in 20 biannual send-outs. Per send-out, 50-71 participants were requested to enumerate CD3 + , CD4 + , and CD8 + T cells, B cells, and NK cells, and to provide methodological details. Participants received written debriefings with personalized recommendations after each send-out. For this report, data were analyzed using robust multivariate regression. Five variables were associated with significant positive or negative bias of absolute lymphocyte subset counts: (i) platform methodology (i.e., singleplatform assays yielded lower CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell counts than did dual-platform assays); (ii) sample preparation technique (i.e., assays based on mononuclear cells isolation yielded lower T-cell counts than those based on red cell lysis); (iii) gating strategies based on CD45 and sideward scatter gating of lymphocytes yielded higher CD4 + T-cell counts than those based on ''backgating'' of lymphocytes guided by CD45 and CD14); (iv) stabilized samples were generally associated with higher lymphocyte subset counts than nonstabilized samples; and (v) laboratory. Platform methodology, sample stabilization, and laboratory also affected assay variability. With time, assay variability tended to decline; this trend was significant for B-cell counts only. In addition, significant bias and variability of results, independent of the variables tested for in this analysis, were also associated with individual laboratories. In spite of our recommendations, participants tended to standardize their techniques mainly with respect to sample preparation and gating strategies, but less with absolute counting techniques. Failure to fully standardize protocols may have led to only modest reductions in variability of results between laboratories. q 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.