Measurement uncertainty as a universal concept: can it be universally applicable in routine laboratory practice?

Milinković, Neda; Jovičić, Snežana; Ignjatović, Svetlana

doi:10.1080/10408363.2020.1784838

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem of MU is complex [ 31 ]. Thus, the large MU often makes the acceptance zone small or very small, and sometimes also completely eliminated [ 32 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction Products between Testing Laboratory and Market Surveillance: Case study of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives

Stancu¹,

Dębski²,

Michalak³

2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of the interlaboratory comparison (ILC) study of the following four characteristics of ceramic tile adhesives (CTAs): initial tensile adhesion strength, tensile adhesion strength after heat ageing, tensile adhesion strength after immersion in water, and tensile adhesion strength after freeze–thaw cycles. The results showed that the objective of the ILC was achieved—the z-score analysis carried out following ISO 13528 allowed for classifying all results obtained by 23 laboratories out of 27 as satisfactory. The results of the remaining four laboratories were rated worse. Despite the achieved goal, the ILC notes high heterogeneity of the results in terms of failure patterns, as well as significant differences between the lowest and the highest values of tensile adhesion strength for various measurement conditions. The results of the ILC were discussed in terms of the possibility of including them in the risk analysis conducted by the manufacturer. The results of the ILC are also valuable information for market surveillance authorities, who, in the authors’ opinion, should be more cautious about results on samples taken from the market. The ILC results for CTAs are also a valuable recommendation for a possible revision of EN 12004.

show abstract

“…The problem of MU is complex [ 31 ]. Thus, the large MU often makes the acceptance zone small or very small, and sometimes also completely eliminated [ 32 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction Products between Testing Laboratory and Market Surveillance: Case study of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives

Stancu¹,

Dębski²,

Michalak³

2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Filling in the GAPS: validation of anion gap (AGAP) measurement uncertainty estimates for use in clinical decision making

Gifford

Seiden‐Long

2022

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We compare measurement uncertainty (MU) calculations to real patient result variation observed by physicians using as our model anion gap (AGAP) sequentially measured on two different instrument types. An approach for discretely quantifying the pre-analytical contributions and validating AGAP MU estimates for interpretation of patient results is proposed. Methods AGAP was calculated from sodium, chloride, and bicarbonate reported from chemistry or blood gas analyzers which employ different methodologies and specimen types. AGAP MU was calculated using a top-down approach both assuming no correlation between measurands and alternatively, including consideration of measurand correlation. MU-derived reference change values (RCV) were calculated between chemistry and blood gas analyzers results. Observational paired AGAP data (n=39,626 subjects) was obtained from retrospectively analyzed specimens from five urban tertiary care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Results The MU derived AGAP RCV for paired specimen data by the two platforms was 5.2–6.1 mmol/L assuming no correlation and 2.6–3.1 mmol/L assuming correlation. From the paired chemistry and blood gas data, total observed variation on a reported AGAP has a 95% confidence interval of ±6.0 mmol/L. When the MU-derived RCV assuming correlation is directly compared against the observed distribution of patient results, we obtained a pre-analytical variation contribution of 2.9–3.5 mmol/L to the AGAP observed variation. In contrast, assuming no correlation leads to a negligible pre-analytical contribution (<1.0 mmol/L). Conclusions MU estimates assuming no correlation are more representative of the total variation seen in real patient data. We present a pragmatic approach for validating an MU calculation to inform clinical decisions and determine the pre-analytical contribution to MU in this system.

show abstract

Alcune certezze dell'incertezza di misura: nuova ISO 20914 e raccomandazioni SIPMeL

Pradella¹

2021

Riv Ital Med Lab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement uncertainty as a universal concept: can it be universally applicable in routine laboratory practice?

Cited by 3 publications

References 61 publications

Construction Products between Testing Laboratory and Market Surveillance: Case study of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives

Construction Products between Testing Laboratory and Market Surveillance: Case study of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives

Filling in the GAPS: validation of anion gap (AGAP) measurement uncertainty estimates for use in clinical decision making

Alcune certezze dell'incertezza di misura: nuova ISO 20914 e raccomandazioni SIPMeL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About