Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Variability of laboratory test results.

S Shahangian1, R D Cohn

  • 1Laboratory Practice Assessment Branch, CDC, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724, USA.

American Journal of Clinical Pathology
|April 13, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Increased polyamines as protective disease modifiers in congenital muscular dystrophy.

Human molecular genetics·2018
Same author

The SickKids Genome Clinic: developing and evaluating a pediatric model for individualized genomic medicine.

Clinical genetics·2015
Same author

Interstitial lung disease in patients with hepatopulmonary syndrome: a case series and new observations.

Lung·2014
Same author

Novel KDM6A (UTX) mutations and a clinical and molecular review of the X-linked Kabuki syndrome (KS2).

Clinical genetics·2014
Same author

Immunohistochemistry of affected tissue may guide cGVHD treatment decisions.

Bone marrow transplantation·2011
Same author

Loss of sarcolemmal nNOS is common in acquired and inherited neuromuscular disorders.

Neurology·2011
Same journal

Invasive urothelial carcinoma in association with surface low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma: clinical and pathologic insights from a rare entity.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

CEACAM1 expression by immunohistochemistry in B-cell lymphomas and plasma cell myeloma.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Comprehensive multicriteria life cycle assessment of biopsy processing in a surgical pathology department.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Prognostic significance of Myb protein and its downstream target genes in lacrimal gland adenoid cystic carcinoma.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Mismatch repair protein "nonclassic expression loss" pattern in colorectal cancer: an important staining pattern that is not well understood.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Musculoskeletal pain in medical laboratory personnel: a cross-sectional study.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
See all related articles

Assessing laboratory test result variability for serum total cholesterol and potassium revealed Method 1 is practical, while Method 2 offers more accurate analytic variability assessment, especially for potassium.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Chemistry
  • Laboratory Medicine
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Ensuring accuracy and consistency in laboratory test results is crucial for patient care.
  • Variability in results between laboratories can impact clinical decisions.
  • Audit sample-split specimen designs are used to assess laboratory performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the variabilities of serum total cholesterol and potassium results across different laboratories.
  • To compare two distinct methods for assessing analytic variability in clinical laboratory testing.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized an audit sample-split specimen design with 302 patients.
  • Collected three blood tubes per patient, with one split specimen divided into three audit samples sent to different laboratories.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Employed two methods for variability assessment: Method 1 (result pairs) and Method 2 (audit sample results only).

    • Main Results:

    • Total cholesterol variability estimates were comparable between Method 1 (1.0%-3.7% CV) and Method 2.
    • Method 1 consistently yielded higher variability estimates for potassium compared to Method 2 (SD 0.096-0.168 mmol/L vs. 0.035-0.090 mmol/L).

    Conclusions:

    • Method 1 offers a practical approach for assessing laboratory test variability.
    • Method 2 provides a more accurate assessment of analytic variability, particularly for analytes like potassium.
    • The choice of method impacts the estimation of laboratory test variability.