-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: TB: Conceptualization, Writing-Original draft preparation. TB, JG: Writing-Reviewing and Editing. The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: Not applicable.
References
1. Åsberg, A, Solem, KB, Mikkelsen, G. Allowable systematic difference between two instruments measuring the same analyte. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2014;74:588–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2014.921836.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Nam, Y, Lee, JH, Kim, SM, Jun, SH, Song, SH, Lee, K, et al.. Periodic comparability verification and within-laboratory harmonization of clinical chemistry laboratory results at a large healthcare center with multiple instruments. Ann Lab Med 2021;42:150–9. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.2.150.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Lippi, G, Da Rin, G. Advantages and limitations of total laboratory automation: a personal overview. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:802–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1323.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Seaberg, RS, Stallone, RO, Statland, BE. The role of total laboratory automation in a consolidated laboratory network. Clin Chem 2000;46:751–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/46.5.751.Search in Google Scholar
5. Yago, M, Pla, C. Reference-mean-centered statistical quality control. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1517–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1034.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Parvin, C, Kuchipudi, L, Yundt-Pacheco, J. Designing QC rules in the presence of laboratory bias: should a QC rule be centered on the instrument’s mean or the reference mean? 2019. Available from: https://www.qcnet.com/Portals/0/Events/AACCAbstPoster2012.pdf [Accessed 6 Jun 2022].Search in Google Scholar
7. Parvin, CA, Gronowski, AM. Effect of analytical run length on quality-control (QC) performance and the QC planning process. Clin Chem 1997;43:2149–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/43.11.2149.Search in Google Scholar
8. Braga, F, Pasqualetti, S, Aloisio, E, Panteghini, M. The internal quality control in the traceability era. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0371.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Jones, GRD, Delatour, V, Badrick, T. Metrological traceability and clinical traceability of laboratory results – the role of commutability in External Quality Assurance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:669–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0038.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Kuchipudi, LS, Yundt-Pacheco, J, Parvin, CA. Designing QC rules for multiple instruments: should a QC rule be centered on individual instrument means or on a fixed mean? Should the limits be based on individual instrument SDs or on a fixed SD? 2019. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Designing-QC-Rules-for-Multiple-Instruments-%3A-a-QC-Kuchipudi-Yundt-Pacheco/3bba0f0f094da9c870215821d3e0551cc9a41557 [Accessed 16 Jan 2023].Search in Google Scholar
11. Vidali, M, Padoan, A, Dittadi, R, Brugnoni, D, Carobene, A, Mattioli, S, et al.. Protocol to verify the comparability of quantitative laboratory results obtained with different measurement procedures. Biochim Clin 2019;43:228–43.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
