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

164
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:
164
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

1.5K
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...
1.5K
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

94
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...
94

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

The variability of measured and calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in statin-treated diabetes patients.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2024
Same author

A case of autoimmune hepatitis associated with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2024
Same author

Performance of renin assays in selecting fludrocortisone dose in children with adrenal disorders.

Endocrine connections·2024
Same author

Factors influencing the derivation and clinical application of blood calcium adjustment equations.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2022
Same author

Reducing neonatal phlebotomy blood losses through the accurate calculation of minimum test volume requirements.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2021
Same author

Quality control failures exceeding the weekly limit (QC FEWL): a simple tool to improve assay error detection.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2019

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 6, 2025

A Strategy for Sensitive, Large Scale Quantitative Metabolomics
14:18

A Strategy for Sensitive, Large Scale Quantitative Metabolomics

Published on: May 27, 2014

21.0K

Assay error detection when using common quality control targets across multiple instruments: An analysis using

Eric S Kilpatrick1,2

  • 1Division of Clinical Biochemistry, Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar.

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
|January 3, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Common quality control (QC) targets on identical lab instruments reduce error detection and cause unequal QC failure rates. Individual QC targets are preferable for accurate assay monitoring.

Keywords:
Quality controlcontrol ruleserror detectionlaboratory error

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

17.1K
Large Scale Non-targeted Metabolomic Profiling of Serum by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry UPLC-MS
07:34

Large Scale Non-targeted Metabolomic Profiling of Serum by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry UPLC-MS

Published on: March 14, 2013

12.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 6, 2025

A Strategy for Sensitive, Large Scale Quantitative Metabolomics
14:18

A Strategy for Sensitive, Large Scale Quantitative Metabolomics

Published on: May 27, 2014

21.0K
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

17.1K
Large Scale Non-targeted Metabolomic Profiling of Serum by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry UPLC-MS
07:34

Large Scale Non-targeted Metabolomic Profiling of Serum by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry UPLC-MS

Published on: March 14, 2013

12.8K

Area of Science:

  • Clinical laboratory diagnostics
  • Analytical chemistry
  • Quality management systems

Background:

  • Clinical laboratories often use identical instruments and quality control (QC) rules.
  • The optimal approach for QC targets—individual per analyzer or common across all—remains unclear.
  • This study investigates the impact of common QC targets on assay error detection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To model the influence of common QC targets on assay error detection and false rejection rates.
  • To compare the performance of common QC targets versus individual QC targets on identical instruments.
  • To evaluate the real-world consequences using actual QC data.

Main Methods:

  • Simulated the effects of bias and imprecision on error detection with common vs. individual QC targets.
  • Analyzed QC data from two identical Beckman instruments over six months.
  • Utilized over 100 QC data points per instrument for real-world consequence determination.

Main Results:

  • Common QC targets showed asymmetrical effects on systematic error detection between instruments.
  • If individual assay standard deviations (SDs) differed, common targets increased QC failures on one instrument.
  • Common targets reduced error detection by ≥ 0.4 sigma on 33% of tests and caused one instrument's in-control assays to fail over twice as frequently (31% of assays).

Conclusions:

  • Common QC targets can decrease the detection of individual assay performance changes.
  • Common targets may lead to disproportionately higher QC failure rates on one instrument compared to another.
  • Further research is needed to determine the clinical impact of common QC targets.