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 Concept Videos

Data Validation01:15

Data Validation

287
Method validation is a crucial process in analytical chemistry designed to confirm that a given method consistently produces reliable and high-quality results. This process is essential when a method is applied to different sample matrices or when procedural modifications are made, ensuring that the results meet acceptable standards across various applications.
Key parameters for method validation include:
287
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

167
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
167
Drug Dissolution: Requirements and Profile Comparison01:14

Drug Dissolution: Requirements and Profile Comparison

27
The acceptance criteria for dissolution profile data are anchored in Q values, representing the percentage of drug dissolved within a specified period. This assessment unfolds in three stages:First Stage: The test passes if all six drug dosage units are equal to or greater than Q plus 5%; otherwise, the sample proceeds to the second stage.Second Stage: The average of twelve units must be equal to or greater than Q, with no unit falling below Q - 15% to pass; if not, it progresses to the final...
27
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

3.6K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
3.6K
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation01:19

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

2.5K
A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
2.5K
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Lab01:21

Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Lab

633
For AAS measurements, samples must be introduced as clear solutions, often requiring extensive preliminary treatment to dissolve materials like soils, animal tissues, and minerals. Common methods for sample preparation include treatment with hot mineral acids, wet ashing, combustion in closed containers, high-temperature ashing, or fusion with reagents.
 Solutions containing organic solvents, such as low-molecular-mass alcohols, esters, or ketones, enhance absorbances by increasing...
633

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Instagram as an Educational Platform for Familial Mediterranean Fever: A 33-Month Experience.

The Journal of rheumatology·2026
Same author

Harmonization of measurement units: mission impossible or ethical imperative?

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same author

Interleukin Signatures as Histology-Aligned Biomarkers in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Inflammatory intestinal diseases·2026
Same author

Age- and Sex-Specific Reference Intervals for TSH, FT4, and FT3 Derived from the Turkish Multi-Center Cohort.

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Guidance in the application of quality management in the field of chromatography in routine medical laboratories - EFLM Committee: Accreditation and ISO/CEN Standards point of view.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same author

A survey of external quality assessment schemes (EQAS) for faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT).

Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 3, 2025

Quantitative Detection of Trace Explosive Vapors by Programmed Temperature Desorption Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detector
07:57

Quantitative Detection of Trace Explosive Vapors by Programmed Temperature Desorption Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detector

Published on: July 25, 2014

20.1K

An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation.

Marith van Schrojenstein Lantman1,2, Hikmet Can Çubukçu3, Guilaine Boursier4

  • 1Result Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
|February 16, 2022
PubMed
Summary

Medical laboratories ensure accurate results through quality control. This study proposes a model to manage reagent lot variations, improving long-term measurement consistency and reliability.

Keywords:
measurement proceduresmeasurement uncertaintyposition paperreagent-lot

More Related Videos

Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry for Absolute Protein Quantification
09:04

Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry for Absolute Protein Quantification

Published on: August 17, 2015

17.2K
Reliable Mechanochemistry: Protocols for Reproducible Outcomes of Neat and Liquid Assisted Ball-mill Grinding Experiments
13:05

Reliable Mechanochemistry: Protocols for Reproducible Outcomes of Neat and Liquid Assisted Ball-mill Grinding Experiments

Published on: January 23, 2018

10.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 3, 2025

Quantitative Detection of Trace Explosive Vapors by Programmed Temperature Desorption Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detector
07:57

Quantitative Detection of Trace Explosive Vapors by Programmed Temperature Desorption Gas Chromatography-Electron Capture Detector

Published on: July 25, 2014

20.1K
Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry for Absolute Protein Quantification
09:04

Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry for Absolute Protein Quantification

Published on: August 17, 2015

17.2K
Reliable Mechanochemistry: Protocols for Reproducible Outcomes of Neat and Liquid Assisted Ball-mill Grinding Experiments
13:05

Reliable Mechanochemistry: Protocols for Reproducible Outcomes of Neat and Liquid Assisted Ball-mill Grinding Experiments

Published on: January 23, 2018

10.8K

Area of Science:

  • Clinical chemistry
  • Laboratory medicine
  • Measurement uncertainty

Background:

  • Medical laboratories are crucial for clinical decisions, relying on accurate and consistent test results.
  • Analytical performance characteristics (APC) and specifications (APS) ensure test result reliability.
  • Within-laboratory precision (u_Rw) estimates random error sources impacting measurement uncertainty.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce a model for allocating allowable measurement uncertainty to between-reagent lot variation.
  • To ensure long-term consistency of measurement variability for specific measurands.
  • To provide guidance for laboratories on managing reagent lot-induced bias.

Main Methods:

  • Postulating a model to allocate a portion of allowable within-laboratory precision (u_Rw) to between-reagent lot variation.
  • Analyzing the influence of reagent and calibrator lot shifts on measurement uncertainty.
  • Managing the ratio of short-term to long-term measurement variation.

Main Results:

  • The proposed model helps distinguish manageable from unmanageable factors influencing measurement uncertainty.
  • It quantifies the impact of reagent lot shifts on analytical performance characteristics.
  • The model provides criteria for rejecting or correcting variations attributed to reagent lots.

Conclusions:

  • Effective management of between-reagent lot variation is essential for maintaining measurement procedure adequacy.
  • The model aids laboratories in ensuring the long-term consistency of measurement variability.
  • This approach enhances the reliability of laboratory results used for clinical decision-making.