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 study examined how much laboratory test results for total cholesterol and potassium can vary when the same blood sample is tested in different labs. Researchers collected three blood tubes from each of 302 patients and sent them to three different labs. They used two methods to assess variability: one compared the original sample with an audit sample, and the other used only audit samples. For cholesterol, both methods gave similar results, but for potassium, the first method showed higher variability. The authors suggest that the first method is more practical, but the second gives a more accurate picture of analytic variability. This study helps improve the reliability of diagnostic testing by highlighting the importance of method choice in variability assessments.

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

Area of Science:

  • Clinical laboratory diagnostics
  • Medical quality assurance
  • Biomedical testing variability

Background:

Prior research has shown that laboratory test results can vary across different facilities. It was already known that factors like sample handling and equipment calibration influence outcomes. However, no prior work had resolved how much variability arises from the testing process itself versus the sample characteristics. This gap motivated a closer examination of serum total cholesterol and potassium measurements. The need to distinguish analytic variability from pre-analytic factors remains a challenge. Existing studies often focus on single-laboratory settings, limiting generalizability. This paper's contribution lies in comparing two methods for assessing variability using split specimens. The study addresses a key uncertainty in diagnostic reliability.

Purpose Of The Study:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability in serum total cholesterol and potassium measurements across different laboratories. The specific problem addressed is the lack of clarity about whether variability comes from the test method or the sample itself. This uncertainty drives the need for a comparative analysis of two audit methods. The motivation stems from the importance of accurate diagnostic testing in clinical settings. Variability in results could affect patient care decisions. The study focuses on two analytes commonly tested in routine diagnostics. By using split specimens, the researchers sought to isolate sources of variability. The goal is to inform best practices for quality assurance in medical testing.

Keywords:
laboratory test accuracyclinical audit methodsdiagnostic variability analysismedical testing quality

Frequently Asked Questions

The study found that potassium measurements showed higher variability when using method 1 compared to method 2, with standard deviations ranging from 0.096 to 0.168 mmol/L for method 1.

The design involved collecting three blood tubes from each of 302 patients, with each tube sent to a different laboratory for analysis.

Method 1 is more practical because it uses the original specimen and its corresponding audit sample, making it easier to implement in real-world settings.

The coefficient of variation was used to quantify variability in total cholesterol measurements across different laboratories.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

The study used an audit sample-split specimen design involving 302 patients. Blood was collected in three tubes from each participant. One tube was sent to the original laboratory, another to a commercial referral lab, and the third to an academic referee lab. Two methods were used to assess variability. Method 1 compared split specimens with their corresponding audit samples. Method 2 used only audit sample results. The coefficient of variation and standard deviation were calculated for both analytes. The design allowed for direct comparison of variability estimates. The approach aimed to determine which method better captures analytic variability.

Main Results:

For total cholesterol, both methods gave comparable variability estimates. The coefficient of variation ranged from 1.0% to 3.7%. Potassium results showed greater variability with method 1. The standard deviation for potassium was 0.096 to 0.168 mmol/L using method 1. Method 2 produced lower estimates of 0.035 to 0.090 mmol/L for potassium. This suggests method 1 captures more variability. The difference between methods was statistically significant for potassium. Total cholesterol variability remained relatively stable across methods. These findings highlight the importance of method selection in variability studies.

Conclusions:

The authors concluded that method 1 is more practical for assessing variability in diagnostic testing. However, method 2 provides a more accurate estimate of analytic variability. The study showed that variability in potassium measurements is higher than in cholesterol. The findings suggest that the choice of audit method affects variability estimates. Both methods are valid but serve different purposes. The results indicate that potassium is more sensitive to testing conditions. The study supports the need for standardized audit procedures. These conclusions are based on the observed differences in variability estimates.

Method 1 provided higher variability estimates for potassium (0.096–0.168 mmol/L) compared to method 2 (0.035–0.090 mmol/L).

The authors suggest that the choice of audit method impacts variability estimates, implying the need for standardized procedures to ensure diagnostic reliability.