TY - JOUR
T1 - Method evaluation in the clinical laboratory
AU - Loh, Tze Ping
AU - Cooke, Brian R.
AU - Markus, Corey
AU - Zakaria, Rosita
AU - Tran, Mai Thi Chi
AU - Ho, Chung Shun
AU - Greaves, Ronda F.
AU - IFCC Working Group on Method Evaluation Protocols
PY - 2023/4/1
Y1 - 2023/4/1
N2 - Method evaluation is one of the critical components of the quality system that ensures the ongoing quality of a clinical laboratory. As part of implementing new methods or reviewing best practices, the peer-reviewed published literature is often searched for guidance. From the outset, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) has a rich history of publishing methods relevant to clinical laboratory medicine. An insight into submissions, from editors' and reviewers' experiences, shows that authors still struggle with method evaluation, particularly the appropriate requirements for validation in clinical laboratory medicine. Here, we consider through a series of discussion points an overview of the status, challenges, and needs of method evaluation from the perspective of clinical laboratory medicine. We identify six key high-level aspects of clinical laboratory method evaluation that potentially lead to inconsistency. 1. Standardisation of terminology, 2. Selection of analytical performance specifications, 3. Experimental design of method evaluation, 4. Sample requirements of method evaluation, 5. Statistical assessment and interpretation of method evaluation data, and 6. Reporting of method evaluation data. Each of these areas requires considerable work to harmonise the practice of method evaluation in laboratory medicine, including more empirical studies to be incorporated into guidance documents that are relevant to clinical laboratories and are freely and widely available. To further close the loop, educational activities and fostering professional collaborations are essential to promote and improve the practice of method evaluation procedures.
AB - Method evaluation is one of the critical components of the quality system that ensures the ongoing quality of a clinical laboratory. As part of implementing new methods or reviewing best practices, the peer-reviewed published literature is often searched for guidance. From the outset, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) has a rich history of publishing methods relevant to clinical laboratory medicine. An insight into submissions, from editors' and reviewers' experiences, shows that authors still struggle with method evaluation, particularly the appropriate requirements for validation in clinical laboratory medicine. Here, we consider through a series of discussion points an overview of the status, challenges, and needs of method evaluation from the perspective of clinical laboratory medicine. We identify six key high-level aspects of clinical laboratory method evaluation that potentially lead to inconsistency. 1. Standardisation of terminology, 2. Selection of analytical performance specifications, 3. Experimental design of method evaluation, 4. Sample requirements of method evaluation, 5. Statistical assessment and interpretation of method evaluation data, and 6. Reporting of method evaluation data. Each of these areas requires considerable work to harmonise the practice of method evaluation in laboratory medicine, including more empirical studies to be incorporated into guidance documents that are relevant to clinical laboratories and are freely and widely available. To further close the loop, educational activities and fostering professional collaborations are essential to promote and improve the practice of method evaluation procedures.
KW - laboratory medicine
KW - method evaluation
KW - validation
KW - verification
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141279801&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/cclm-2022-0878
DO - 10.1515/cclm-2022-0878
M3 - Article
C2 - 36327459
AN - SCOPUS:85141279801
SN - 1434-6621
VL - 61
SP - 751
EP - 758
JO - Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
JF - Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
IS - 5
ER -