Our goal in laboratory medicine is to produce information which can be used for clinical decisions that improve patient health. The basis for this is test results which are sufficiently accurate. This apparently obvious and simple statement covers a range of complex issues with which our profession is continuing to grapple. An accurate measurement result is one with low bias, low imprecision and a high level of freedom from interferences. The accuracy of the result on a patient sample can also be affected by variation which may occur during the pre-or the postanalytical phases. In addition to errors which affect the numerical value of a result, in all phases "blunders", such as mislabelling of a specimen or a short sample on an analyser, can occur making all the results potentially incorrect and dangerous. Finally the statement requires consideration of what constitutes "sufficient" accuracy. These issues remain under active research and debate as can be seen by a number of articles in the current edition of this journal, covering quality indicators and analytical quality in two major studies from China, and opinion pieces on quality concepts in the analytical phase. The papers also follow on from issues raised at the Milan conference on performance specifications [1] with decisions made about the model selected for assessment of quality.Fei et al.[2] reported on a major study of quality indicators covering all phases of laboratory work. The study assessed performance for over 5000 laboratories in China against 15 quality indicators, broken down by laboratory discipline where appropriate. This major study has considered the issue of performance specifications and selected "state of the art" as the most appropriate model, with optimal performance defined by that achieved by the best 25% of laboratories, desirable achieved by 50% and minimal as achieved by 75%. This baseline provides a basis for both individual laboratories and the combined group to assess progress over time. Comparison of data from different studies of this type however is inherently difficult, requiring the use of exact and uniform definitions of errors and thorough processes to identify failures. Such comparison could be facilitated by providing the exact definitions used in the analysis, for example the EQA performance specifications and the definition of an incorrect tube fill level.The analytical phase in China is addressed by Ge et al. [3] where the analytical performance of four electrolytes was assessed in 187 routine laboratories. The study used fresh frozen plasma, which is likely to be commutable, with reference method value assignment. This study used biological variation to set performance specifications although different approaches were taken depending on the magnitude of the relationship between the state of the art and biological variation. A specific finding of this study was the demonstrated superiority of methods where the calibrator and reagents were purchased from the same manufacturer (described as homogenous systems) compa...