Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Verification of out-of-control situations detected by “average of normal” approach

dc.contributor.authorLiu, Jiakaien
dc.contributor.authorTan, Chin Honen
dc.contributor.authorLoh, Tze Pingen
dc.contributor.authorBadrick, Tonyen
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-24T02:26:20Z
dc.date.available2025-03-24T02:26:20Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-01en
dc.description.abstractObjectives “Average of normal” (AoN) or “moving average” is increasingly used as an adjunct quality control tool in laboratory practice. Little guidance exists on how to verify if an out-of-control situation in the AoN chart is due to a shift in analytical performance, or underlying patient characteristics. Design and methods Through simulation based on clinical data, we examined 1) the location of the last apparently stable period in the AoN control chart after an analytical shift, and 2) an approach to verify if the observed shift is related to an analytical shift by repeat testing of archived patient samples from the stable period for 21 common analytes. Results The number of blocks of results to look back for the stable period increased with the duration of the analytical shift, and was larger when smaller AoN block sizes were used. To verify an analytical shift, 3 archived samples from the analytically stable period should be retested. In particular, the process is deemed to have shifted if a difference of > 2 analytical standard deviations (i.e. 1:2 s rejection rule) between the original and retested results are observed in any of the 3 samples produced. The probability of Type-1 error (i.e., false rejection) and power (i.e., detecting true analytical shift) of this rule are < 0.1 and > 0.9, respectively. Conclusions The use of appropriately archived patient samples to verify an apparent analytical shift is preferred to quality control materials. Nonetheless, the above findings may also apply to quality control materials, barring matrix effects.en
dc.description.statustrueen
dc.format.extent6en
dc.identifier.otherScopus:84992052447en
dc.identifier.otherPubMed:27452179en
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace-test.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/733733301
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992052447&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.rightsPublisher Copyright: © 2016 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemistsen
dc.sourceClinical Biochemistryen
dc.subjectAnalyticalen
dc.subjectErroren
dc.subjectLaboratory managementen
dc.subjectQuality controlen
dc.subjectStatisticsen
dc.titleVerification of out-of-control situations detected by “average of normal” approachen
dc.typeArticleen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage1253en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1248en
local.contributor.affiliationLiu, Jiakai; National University of Singaporeen
local.contributor.affiliationTan, Chin Hon; National University of Singaporeen
local.contributor.affiliationLoh, Tze Ping; National University Hospitalen
local.contributor.affiliationBadrick, Tony; Bond Universityen
local.identifier.citationvolume49en
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.07.012en
local.identifier.pureefd5f3f9-f615-45d9-9967-76e23026f06ben
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads