Objective  To select corresponding target measurement uncertainty (TMU) based on the expected goals of measurement items in medical laboratories, aiming to consistently enhance measurement quality.

Methods  Utilizing the performance specifications of measurement uncertainty as defined by the Milan models and the analytical performance specifications of external quality assurance (EQA) scheme, the study analyzed TMU in the practical application of laboratory measurement items. A guiding principle for selecting TMU in medical laboratories was suggested.

Results  A singular analytical performance specification from the EQA scheme does not satisfy the requirements of the anticipated goals of medical laboratory measurement. The Milan models offer a diverse selection model for medical laboratory measurements and cater to varying expected goals of such measurements.

Conclusion  Medical laboratories can use the diverse performance specifications to choose an appropriate target uncertainty that aligns with the expected measurement goals, fostering continuous quality improvement. Currently, not all medical laboratory measurement items offer multiple performance specifications for selection. The analytical performance specification of EQA remains a viable option for TMU.

1.Ferraro S, Braga F, Panteghini M. Laboratory medicine in the new healthcare environment[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2016, 54(4): 523-533. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0803.

2.中国合格评定国家认可委员会. CNAS-CL01-G003: 2019, 测量不确定度的要求[S]. (2019-04-10). [China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment.CNAS-CL01-G003: 2019, Requirements for measurement uncertainty[S]. (2019-04-10).] https://www.cnas.org.cn/rkgf/sysrk/rkyyzz/2020/12/904400.shtml.

3.Braga F, Panteghini M. The utility of measurement uncertainty in medical laboratories[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2020, 58(9): 1407-1413. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2019-1336.

4.中国合格评定国家认可委员会. CNAS-TRL-001:2012,医学实验室-测量不确定度的评定与表达[S]. (2012-11-08). [China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment. CNAS-TRL-001:2012, Medical laboratory-evaluation and expression of measurement uncertainty[S]. (2012-11-08).] https://www.cnas.org.cn/zxtz/703169.shtml.

5.International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 20914:2019, Medical laboratories—practical guidance for the estimation of measurement uncertainty[S]. (2019-07). https://www.iso.org/standard/69445.html.

6.丁海峰, 张琪, 魏鹏飞, 等. 医学实验室运用室内质控与能力验证数据程序化评定测量不确定度[J].数理医药学杂志, 2023, 36(5): 346-351. [Ding HF, Zhang Q, Wei PF, et al. Programmatic evaluation of measurement uncertainty using IQC and PT data in medical laboratory[J]. Journal of Mathematical Medicine, 2023, 36(5): 346-351.] DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1004-4337.202303086.

7.中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. WS/T 403-2012, 临床生物化学检验常规项目分析质量指标[S]. (2012-12-25). [National Health Commission. WS/T 403-2012, Analytical quality specifications for routine analytes in clinical biochemistry[S]. (2012-12-25).] http://www.nhc.gov.cn/wjw/s9492/201301/c8dd48222ab14387a6503667be78bec3.shtml.

8.国家卫生健康委临床检验中心. 室间质量评价标准-2022[S]. [National Center for Clinical Laboratories. Evaluation criteria of external quality assessment (EQA) 2022[S].] https://www.nccl.org.cn/showEqaPlanProDetail?id=363.

9.Panteghini M. Application of traceability concepts to analytical quality control may reconcile total error with uncertainty of measurement[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2010, 48(1): 7-10.  DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.020.

10.Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st strategic conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2015, 53(6): 833-835. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0067.

11.Ceriotti F, Fernandez-Calle P, Klee GG, et al. Criteria for assigning laboratory measurands to a models for analytical performance specifications defined in the 1st EFLM strategic conference[C]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2017, 55(2): 189-194. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2016-0091.

12.Panteghini M, Ceriotti F, Jones G, et al. Strategies to define performance specifications in laboratory medicine: 3 years on from the Milan strategic conference[C]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2017, 55(12): 1849-1856. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-0772.

13.Horvath AR, Bossuyt PM, Sandberg S, et, al. Setting analytical performance specifications based on outcome studies - is it possible?[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2015, 53(6): 841-848. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0214.

14.Braga F, Panteghini M. Performance specifications for measurement uncertainty of common biochemical measurands according to Milan models[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2021, 59(8): 1362-1368. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0170.

15.Bartlett WA, Braga F, Carobene A, et al. A checklist for critical appraisal of studies of biological variation[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2015, 53(6): 879-885. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2014-1127.

16.Smith SJ, Cooper GR, Myers GL, et al. Biological variability in concentrations of serum lipids: sources of variation among results from published studies and composite predicted values[J]. Clin Chem, 1993, 39(6): 1012-1022. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/39.6.1012.

17.Aarsand AK, Fernandez-Calle P, Webster C, et al. The EFLM Biological Variation Database[EB/OL]. [2023-09-08]. https://biologicalvariation.eu/.

18.Bais R, Armbruster D, Jansen RT, et al. Defining acceptable limits for the metrological traceability of specific measurands[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2013, 51(5): 973-979. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-0122.

19.Miller WG, Jones GR, Horowitz GL, et al. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions[J]. Clin Chem, 2011, 57(12): 1670-1680. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.168641.

20.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical laboratory improvement amendments (CLIA)[EB/OL]. [2023-09-08]. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/clia/regs/toc.aspx.

21.Witte DL. Medically relevant laboratory-performance goals: a listing of the complexities and a call for action[J]. Clin Chem, 1993, 39(7): 1530-1535. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8330415/.