International Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Research

Print ISSN: 2394-6369

Online ISSN: 2394-6377

CODEN : IJCBK6

International Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Research (IJCBR) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2014 and is published under auspices of the Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation (IESRF), aim to uplift researchers, scholars, academicians, and professionals in all academic and scientific disciplines. IESRF is dedicated to the transfer of technology and research by publishing scientific journals, research content, providing professional’s membership, and conducting conferences, seminars, and award more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 224

PDF Downloaded: 120


Get Permission Bais, Singh, Tripathi, and K Cheirmaraj: Sigma performance evaluations for clinical chemistry and immunoassays in a tertiary care hospital laboratory based on Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) 1988 and 2024 Guidelines


Introduction

In this era of evidence-based medicine, clinical laboratory test results play a crucial role in providing valuable information about a patient’s health condition based on the analysis of various biological specimens, such as blood, urine and other body fluids. The goal of clinical laboratories is to provide accurate and reliable results within the stipulated time, as medical practitioners rely on these reports for diagnosis, treatment, progress monitoring and to make informed decisions about patient care management.1 Regular monitoring of quality in a clinical laboratory is essential to ensure the accuracy and precision of multiple analytes testing performed in the laboratory. Quality assurance and quality control measures are implemented to maintain high standards and reliability in laboratory testing. Under a quality management system, clinical laboratories process both internal and external quality control samples for quality assurance of all biochemical analytes.2 Currently, most clinical laboratories are implementing sigma metrics to monitor test performance quality, focus on continuous quality improvement based on the sigma score for all the analytes, and minimize operational defects in the process.3, 4

A higher sigma score indicates fewer errors in the pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical processes, as well as improved accuracy and precision of test results reported. Sigma score analysis helps identify analytes that have robust performance. Such analytes do not need frequent quality checks. Inversely, analytes exhibiting imprecision or inaccuracy require a more stringent quality control protocol.5, 6 Overall, monitoring the performance of all the analytes processed in the clinical laboratory, based on sigma metrics, offers the advantage of identifying the quality baseline. It aids in the quality improvement of laboratory practices to ensure accurate and reliable test results are reported for all patients.

The incorporation of sigma metrics scale in analytical performance in our lab revealed the poor performing assays in clinical chemistry and immunoassay tests. A detailed root cause analysis done identified operational defects like non-compliance with SOPs, frequent reagent lot changes, infrequent test requests, and staff competency issues. Solutions included staff education, training, regular competency assessments, preparation and implementation of detailed SOPs, and reagent lot reservation from manufacturers.

The goal of this study was to analyze and monitor the performance of 48 analytes based on both Chemistry and Immunological assays, which were processed at a tertiary care center using VITROS XT 7600 Integrated clinical laboratory systems.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted at the Department of Biochemistry, Medanta Hospital, Lucknow, UP, India. The NABL-accredited Department of Biochemistry provides clinical laboratory services to all the patients undergoing health care management in the NABH-accredited tertiary care Hospital, Medanta Hospital, Lucknow, UP, India. It is a retrospective study spanning twelve months from Jan 2023-Dec 2023 for 48 clinical chemistry and immunoassays.

  1. Data collection: Data for IQC was collected via UNITY REAL TIME software from Bio-Rad. Data for EQAS were collected via QCnet.com by BIO-RAD.

  2. Inclusion criteria: All acceptable QC run data points were included for the duration of the study for the selected parameters.

  3. Exclusion criteria: For the IQC, no data points were excluded for the selected parameters.  In the case of folate, in the EQAS performance, the EQAS samples in the month of April, July, and October 2023 showed high values above the linearity limit of 20 ng/mL. Those results were not reported and excluded in the data analysis. Further, the parameters excluded from this study consisted of less frequently asked tests like Progesterone, for which IQC was processed only on demand and hence a limited data was available for analysis.

Analyzer

Department of Biochemistry at Medanta Hospital, Lucknow, is equipped with VITROS Total Lab Automation System (QuidelOrtho, USA) consisting pre-analytical systems viz., sample sorter with bar-code identification, decapper, sample router through tracker; analytical systems - fully automated VITROS XT 7600 Integrated systems for processing both Chemistry and immunological assays; and post-analytical system viz., recapper and buffer modules. All these modules are controlled by the middleware - VITROS Instrument Manager. All the biochemical analytes are processed using VITROS MicroSlide Technology and VITROS MicroTip Technology, and immunological assays are processed using VITROS enhanced chemiluminescence technology in VITROS XT 7600 Integrated systems.

VITROS XT 7600 system utilizes microsensor technology to monitor the quality of all the serum, plasma, and CSF samples in real time with respect to hemolysis, icteric and lipemic and report the sample quality in the form of HIT Index (Hemolysis, Icteric and Turbidity index). Affected results are flagged automatically alerting the user who then initiates requisite corrective action.

The Vitros XT 7600 integrates microslide, microtip, and enhanced chemiluminescence technologies, offering a wide range of tests. Dry chemistry systems, used by microslide technology, provide more stable results than wet chemistry and minimizes interferences from hemolysis, icteric, Lipemic and paraprotein issues. Use of disposable tips eliminate sample and reagent carryover, enhancing accuracy. The system boasts better reagent stability, long calibration stability, onboard refrigeration, and faster results, leading to excellent precision and cost efficiency. However, the system also has certain disadvantages like high setup costs, which deters laboratories with less workload from opting dry chemistry, the need to maintain ambient temperature and humidity is crucial for the system and reagent stability on board.

Figure 1

Number of clinical chemistry assays (1a) and immunoassays (1b) performing at various sigma levels

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/7beb6dcb-4541-4658-a645-8aa898cb9522/image/3f913a05-20bc-4a73-90aa-1949ea915e2d-ufig-xy-17th-august-2024.jpg

Table 1

The list of assays analyzed for its performance in sigma scale

S. No.

Parameter

Technology

1

Albumin

Microslide Technology

2

Alanine aminotransferase

Microslide Technology

3

Alkaline phosphatase

Microslide Technology

4

Amylase

Microslide Technology

5

Aspartate aminotransferase

Microslide Technology

6

Bilirubin total

Microslide Technology

7

Bicarbonate (CO2)

Microslide Technology

8

Calcium

Microslide Technology

9

Chloride

Microslide Technology

10

Creatine kinase

Microslide Technology

11

Creatinine

Microslide Technology

12

Cholesterol, Total

Microslide Technology

13

Cholesterol HDL

Microslide Technology

14

Gamma GGT

Microslide Technology

15

Glucose

Microslide Technology

16

Iron, Total

Microslide Technolog

17

Lactate dehydrogenase

Microslide Technology

18

Lipase

Microslide Technology

19

Magnesium

Microslide Technology

20

Phosphorus

Microslide Technology

21

Potassium

Microslide Technology

22

Sodium

Microslide Technology

23

Total protein

Microslide Technology

24

Triglycerides

Microslide Technology

25

Urea

Microslide Technology

26

Uric acid

Microslide Technology

27

Cholesterol LDL

Microtip Technology

28

Total iron-binding capacity

Microtip Technology

29

AFP

Microwell Technology

30

B-hCG

Microwell Technology

31

CA-125

Microwell Technology

32

CA-19.9

Microwell Technology

33

CEA

Microwell Technology

34

CK-MB (Mass)

Microwell Technology

35

Cortisol

Microwell Technology

36

Ferritin

Microwell Technology

37

Folate

Microwell Technology

38

FSH

Microwell Technology

39

Free-T3

Microwell Technology

40

Free-T4

Microwell Technology

41

Intact PTH

Microwell Technology

42

LH

Microwell Technology

43

NT-Pro BNP

Microwell Technology

44

Prolactin

Microwell Technology

45

PSA Total

Microwell Technology

46

Testosterone

Microwell Technology

47

TSH

Microwell Technology

48

Vitamin B12

Microwell Technology

Table 2

The internal quality control performance of clinical chemistry assays in terms of CV%

S. No.

Parameter

Level

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average CV%

1

Albumin

1

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.3

1.4

2.6

1.8

2.2

1.6

2

1.6

1.8

1.3

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.6

1.5

1.2

1.4

2

Alanine Aminotransferase

1

2.7

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.6

2.4

2.0

3.2

1.6

5.4

2.4

2

1.8

1.3

0.9

1.3

1.5

1.6

2.1

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.5

1.5

3

Alkaline Phosphatase

1

3.1

3.0

2.3

2.8

2.4

2.4

3.0

2.0

2.3

2.8

2.8

3.9

2.7

2

2.5

1.7

2.0

1.9

3.4

2.8

2.4

2.7

1.8

3.0

1.7

2.8

2.4

4

Amylase

1

3.3

4.6

3.0

4.3

3.1

4.0

2.7

3.4

4.5

2.0

2.9

3.9

3.5

2

3.0

1.7

1.8

2.1

2.3

2.0

1.7

2.1

2.6

2.1

2.1

3.9

2.3

5

Aspartate Aminotransferase

1

2.0

2.0

2.6

2.4

1.8

2.2

1.8

1.5

2.7

1.7

1.8

2.3

2.1

2

2.3

1.9

1.8

2.7

2.0

2.2

2.0

2.6

3.3

3.0

2.1

2.1

2.3

6

Bilirubin (Total)

1

7.3

8.0

5.8

6.4

6.8

8.9

6.2

5.6

5.4

4.8

7.4

9.6

6.9

2

4.7

2.9

2.9

3.1

4.0

2.5

2.6

2.7

3.0

3.5

2.7

3.1

3.1

7

Bicarbonate CO2

1

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.9

3.1

4.7

3.5

4.6

4.2

4.6

4.8

3.7

3.9

2

5.8

6.5

5.0

4.6

6.6

5.8

5.1

4.1

4.8

6.0

5.2

4.7

5.3

8

Calcium

1

2.0

1.1

1.3

0.9

0.9

1.0

0.8

2.1

1.5

0.9

1.3

1.6

1.3

2

1.8

0.9

1.2

1.2

0.9

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.5

0.9

1.3

2.1

1.3

9

Chloride

1

1.2

1.3

0.9

1.1

0.9

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.1

0.7

1.0

0.9

1.0

2

1.4

1.1

1.0

1.2

0.9

0.8

1.0

1.3

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.0

10

Creatine Kinase

1

3.3

3.5

2.4

2.3

3.2

3.4

2.5

2.4

3.2

2.8

2.6

4.0

3.0

2

4.1

4.3

3.3

2.5

2.9

4.3

3.3

2.5

2.3

4.1

2.1

4.3

3.3

11

Creatinine

1

2.3

1.8

1.8

3.1

1.7

2.3

1.3

1.9

2.2

1.8

1.7

3.4

2.1

2

2.0

1.4

1.3

1.8

1.5

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.2

1.5

1.9

1.6

12

Cholesterol (Total)

1

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.5

1.2

1.0

1.6

1.0

1.6

2.7

1.3

2

2.2

1.7

1.7

1.1

1.5

1.9

1.5

1.3

2.0

1.8

2.3

2.8

1.8

13

Cholesterol (HDL)

1

2.4

2.0

3.1

2.6

2.5

3.6

2.4

3.4

4.4

3.2

2.3

3.2

2.9

2

3.7

2.3

2.1

2.1

2.4

3.4

1.5

2.0

2.7

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.4

14

Gamma GT

1

0.7

1.3

2.9

1.1

1.4

1.6

1.3

1.7

2.2

1.3

1.3

2.6

1.6

2

0.9

1.2

3.2

0.8

0.9

2.0

0.9

0.9

1.1

0.9

1.0

2.0

1.3

15

Glucose

1

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.1

0.9

2.7

1.1

1.1

1.6

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

2

1.1

1.6

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.6

0.9

1.0

1.1

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.1

16

Iron (Total)

1

4.8

4.2

3.9

5.2

3.8

6.7

2.5

3.9

4.4

2.8

3.4

3.9

4.1

2

8.6

8.8

5.1

7.9

6.8

9.3

6.7

8.0

9.3

9.0

6.2

6.5

7.7

17

Lactate Dehydrogenase

1

2.5

3.7

3.0

2.5

2.1

1.2

1.7

2.6

2.4

1.9

3.1

2.4

2.4

2

1.0

1.3

2.2

1.6

1.0

1.2

0.9

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.1

1.3

18

Lipase

1

1.4

1.1

0.7

1.0

0.7

0.9

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.7

1.4

1.0

1.1

2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.7

1.4

1.6

1.4

1.8

1.7

2.4

1.3

1.1

1.5

19

Magnesium

1

1.5

3.9

1.8

2.7

1.2

1.8

1.6

1.3

3.0

1.7

1.9

3.2

2.1

2

1.3

2.2

1.5

2.5

1.0

1.9

1.1

1.4

2.3

1.2

1.2

2.0

1.6

20

Phosphorous

1

1.6

1.1

1.2

1.0

1.8

2.9

1.6

1.5

1.9

1.5

0.9

2.2

1.6

2

2.2

1.8

1.2

1.1

2.5

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.3

1.3

1.8

1.4

1.7

21

Potassium

1

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.1

0.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.1

2

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.3

0.9

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.9

1.1

0.9

1.3

1.0

22

Sodium

1

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.5

0.7

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.8

2

0.7

0.9

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.7

1.0

0.8

23

Total Protein

1

1.7

2.6

1.9

1.6

1.4

3.0

1.3

1.1

1.5

1.5

1.7

2.0

1.8

2

1.9

3.0

1.3

1.4

1.3

3.4

1.2

1.5

2.3

1.3

1.3

1.9

1.8

24

Triglycerides

1

1.9

1.5

1.9

1.3

14.0

2.1

1.3

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.4

2.7

2

3.0

1.5

1.5

3.2

1.1

2.7

1.2

1.4

1.1

1.4

2.0

2.1

1.8

25

Urea

1

2.8

2.3

2.6

2.0

2.3

1.2

2.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.8

2.9

2.1

2

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.2

2.0

1.4

26

Uric acid

1

2.3

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.4

1.3

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.0

1.0

2.6

1.3

2

1.9

1.4

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.2

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

27

Cholesterol (LDL)

1

2.0

2.5

1.7

1.4

1.7

1.9

3.0

1.7

2.2

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.0

2

1.7

2.1

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.9

3.5

1.9

1.5

1.9

1.6

1.3

1.8

28

Direct TIBC

1

2.0

1.3

1.5

2.1

1.1

3.6

1.6

3.2

1.5

1.2

2.1

2.9

2.0

2

2.2

2.2

2.0

0.9

1.9

3.1

1.8

4.1

1.9

1.9

2.9

3.0

2.3

Table 3

The internal quality control performance of immunoassays in terms of CV%

S. No.

Parameter

Level

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average CV%

1

AFP

1

4.1

5.8

3.2

3.0

2.4

4.7

3.9

2.8

2.7

5.0

3.9

3.5

3.8

2

3.1

3.3

3.8

3.5

1.2

2.3

4.8

2.4

2.1

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.1

3

3.7

3.4

4.0

4.2

1.8

2.6

4.7

2.5

3.7

3.9

4.2

4.9

3.6

2

BhCG

1

3.1

2.4

2.7

2.7

3.0

1.8

3.5

4.4

2.7

2.9

3.6

3.2

3.0

2

3.3

2.4

4.1

3.2

4.3

3.1

3.8

4.3

3.3

3.6

1.2

3.8

3.4

3

4.1

3.6

3.7

3.9

2.9

2.9

3.7

6.0

3.0

4.8

4.4

3.5

3.9

3

CA-125

1

1.5

3.4

1.7

2.6

4.4

4.9

2.0

2.3

2.6

2.0

2.6

2.3

2.7

2

1.7

3.8

2.2

2.7

4.3

3.4

2.3

2.0

3.2

2.4

2.7

1.7

2.7

3

2.5

3.3

1.9

2.9

4.5

2.7

3.9

3.1

3.1

2.0

2.7

1.5

2.8

4

CA-19.9

1

4.7

4.8

5.2

4.5

3.2

3.4

6.0

3.2

3.9

6.5

6.7

5.1

4.8

2

4.7

3.4

3.7

3.4

2.1

2.6

6.5

2.8

4.0

5.4

6.3

5.0

4.2

3

4.0

3.4

4.9

2.5

2.3

2.2

6.5

3.2

5.5

5.1

6.1

5.4

4.3

5

CEA

1

4.7

3.1

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.7

3.0

1.9

2.5

3.4

3.2

2.7

2.8

2

3.9

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.7

1.9

2.0

1.3

2.8

1.5

2.4

1.2

2.2

3

3.4

1.9

2.1

1.4

3.1

2.4

3.9

3.0

1.6

2.1

2.3

1.4

2.4

6

CKMB (Mass)

1

6.4

9.8

6.3

4.9

1.7

7.9

6.4

4.3

4.3

0.9

5.4

2.7

5.1

2

3.0

3.2

1.7

4.9

0.7

5.9

9.1

4.1

2.7

0.3

3.7

2.9

3.5

3

2.5

3.5

0.3

3.6

1.6

1.5

6.9

3.1

4.2

2.3

0.0

2.7

2.7

7

Cortisol

1

4.0

2.8

3.3

2.5

4.0

2.4

3.4

3.5

3.3

4.3

5.7

2.9

3.5

2

3.0

3.4

3.4

2.6

3.1

1.8

2.7

2.7

1.7

2.9

5.0

3.0

2.9

3

3.0

2.9

2.3

3.2

4.3

2.6

4.7

2.7

2.2

2.8

5.1

1.8

3.1

8

Ferritin

1

5.7

7.9

3.5

4.6

2.8

2.8

2.3

2.7

2.9

5.8

1.1

2.8

3.7

2

5.6

6.3

3.4

4.3

4.1

3.1

2.1

3.2

3.3

6.1

1.6

3.0

3.8

3

4.4

4.5

4.2

3.4

3.4

4.5

4.0

3.1

3.1

3.4

1.7

2.7

3.5

9

Folate

1

8.3

8.7

8.4

5.1

6.2

8.3

8.1

10.4

10.4

10.7

9.7

5.1

8.3

2

8.5

9.0

5.3

7.2

5.6

5.5

8.3

7.9

10.6

9.2

8.7

9.4

7.9

3

8.6

8.4

5.6

6.9

7.3

8.3

9.7

7.8

8.5

10.4

8.7

9.3

8.3

10

FSH

1

2.7

1.7

2.5

2.6

2.8

2.5

2.9

3.3

2.5

2.2

2.2

2.7

2.5

2

2.4

1.5

3.0

2.5

4.0

2.2

3.4

2.6

2.8

2.9

3.2

2.5

2.8

3

3.0

1.8

3.9

2.9

5.0

2.6

3.5

4.8

2.2

3.6

3.6

3.2

3.3

11

Free T3

1

5.2

3.5

4.3

3.5

5.0

4.0

5.1

3.5

4.8

6.2

6.5

3.6

4.6

2

2.3

1.7

1.7

2.0

2.5

2.0

4.6

2.2

1.2

1.8

2.6

1.8

2.2

12

Free T4

1

4.9

4.1

4.2

3.5

5.2

3.4

3.2

3.5

5.7

3.5

3.1

5.0

4.1

2

2.0

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.8

2.4

1.7

1.2

3.6

1.4

3.1

0.6

2.1

13

Intact PTH

1

2.4

8.3

3.7

3.5

4.3

5.9

4.9

3.7

2.3

2.1

3.8

1.9

3.9

2

1.8

6.4

2.1

3.6

2.9

4.2

5.9

2.1

2.6

2.4

6.0

3.1

3.6

3

2.6

6.6

4.0

5.6

6.2

###

4.3

1.3

2.9

2.5

3.6

0.9

4.4

14

LH

1

2.8

3.3

8.2

4.4

2.5

3.9

5.0

3.1

2.8

3.5

2.9

2.8

3.8

2

2.7

2.3

3.4

2.3

2.0

4.1

3.5

3.1

3.5

3.8

4.8

3.8

3.3

3

2.9

1.5

5.2

2.7

2.3

4.1

4.0

3.1

4.0

2.5

3.4

3.6

3.3

15

NT-pro BNP

1

3.9

5.7

4.6

4.6

4.9

3.3

4.1

4.6

4.8

7.0

3.9

5.0

4.7

2

3.0

4.1

2.6

2.8

3.1

2.9

2.8

3.8

3.0

3.0

2.7

4.5

3.2

3

2.3

3.8

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.3

3.3

2.7

3.4

1.4

3.0

3.0

2.7

16

Prolactin

1

3.1

2.4

2.9

3.5

1.8

2.0

3.2

2.3

2.1

1.8

2.9

3.0

2.6

2

2.6

2.1

2.6

3.0

2.2

2.0

2.7

1.4

2.0

1.7

2.0

2.0

2.2

3

2.2

1.3

3.0

4.0

2.6

2.3

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.4

2.7

2.0

2.5

17

PSA Total

1

1.9

2.1

3.0

2.2

3.2

2.3

2.8

2.6

2.0

1.4

1.8

1.9

2.3

2

1.3

2.6

1.6

2.7

2.1

2.3

2.6

2.4

2.0

1.4

2.5

2.8

2.2

3

1.6

0.9

1.4

2.1

2.3

0.8

3.4

3.1

2.1

1.8

0.9

2.2

1.9

18

Testosterone

1

3.8

4.8

3.5

4.0

3.7

4.1

3.7

2.5

2.8

3.2

2.8

2.1

3.4

2

2.2

2.8

4.4

3.2

3.2

2.8

4.0

2.0

1.7

2.6

2.3

1.4

2.7

3

1.5

2.1

2.3

2.6

2.7

2.6

2.7

1.8

1.7

2.0

4.8

1.7

2.4

19

TSH

1

3.5

2.7

4.4

2.2

4.6

4.7

4.4

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.7

3.4

3.8

2

2.4

2.6

2.7

2.1

5.2

4.7

3.9

1.4

3.0

4.0

2.6

3.1

3.1

3

2.6

1.8

2.8

2.4

5.0

5.3

4.5

3.0

2.7

4.7

3.5

3.1

3.5

20

Vitamin B12

1

1.8

1.0

5.5

2.0

1.9

2.2

0.6

2.7

1.6

1.4

1.8

2.0

2.0

2

2.7

2.4

4.0

3.2

2.5

4.4

1.8

3.2

3.4

1.4

1.9

4.4

2.9

3

1.8

2.1

5.3

2.4

2.0

3.2

0.0

1.9

1.9

1.0

1.4

1.9

2.1

Table 4

The EQAS performance of clinical chemistry assays in terms of bias%

S. No.

Parameter

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Bias%

1

Albumin

1.89

1.59

0.90

1.89

4.25

0.58

1.49

4.29

0.85

0.28

1.77

0.08

1.66

2

Alanine

Aminotransferase

10.90

0.68

0.40

4.02

0.18

1.72

1.79

2.23

1.33

0.96

0.94

3.26

2.37

3

Alkaline

Phosphatase

6.52

4.06

7.26

0.34

7.16

2.00

6.51

5.68

12.10

4.24

0.50

2.97

4.94

4

Amylase

0.90

2.35

2.04

0.20

2.48

2.37

9.01

6.97

0.21

0.99

0.83

0.32

2.39

5

Aspartate

Aminotransferase

3.67

0.04

2.37

1.91

2.35

0.56

4.31

2.96

2.14

6.50

0.01

1.59

2.37

6

Bilirubin Total

0.84

1.74

3.41

2.82

4.75

1.47

3.66

3.09

7.08

2.10

6.22

3.93

3.43

7

Bicarbonate (CO2)

3.60

5.34

7.65

1.10

14.20

6.93

7.10

0.02

1.89

0.09

0.87

10.70

4.96

8

Calcium

0.66

3.33

1.38

2.59

3.44

0.42

0.10

3.00

3.47

0.06

0.01

2.43

1.74

9

Chloride

0.00

2.09

0.97

2.04

0.25

0.74

2.31

0.38

0.05

1.59

0.15

0.58

0.93

10

Creatine Kinase

1.76

0.26

2.71

0.11

7.46

0.94

1.13

5.72

1.10

11.70

9.46

7.25

4.13

11

Creatinine

1.27

1.51

0.44

5.70

3.39

0.45

0.11

1.74

4.00

2.04

1.52

1.93

2.01

12

Cholesterol Total

0.58

5.76

1.20

1.36

2.88

0.95

0.14

1.84

3.45

3.56

6.53

3.28

2.63

13

Cholesterol HDL

0.11

1.05

1.67

0.41

6.88

3.50

1.31

2.51

6.78

1.32

4.34

3.93

2.82

14

Gamma GT

3.24

0.76

4.52

3.12

0.81

3.49

1.27

2.10

2.94

1.61

0.29

1.06

2.10

15

Glucose

4.48

3.25

4.42

7.01

3.33

3.20

1.20

1.48

3.32

7.54

2.34

0.20

3.48

16

Iron Total

1.09

1.78

4.78

2.31

5.02

1.72

1.10

3.44

8.17

1.64

7.78

1.95

3.40

17

Lactate Dehydrogenase

3.70

1.36

2.87

0.06

2.69

2.90

0.67

1.57

0.14

0.31

4.47

2.51

1.94

18

Lipase

5.14

3.23

3.43

1.22

0.40

1.24

4.17

6.06

0.16

2.04

5.27

3.12

2.96

19

Magnesium

2.15

1.42

1.60

0.26

0.07

1.44

0.08

3.15

0.33

3.33

2.08

8.49

2.03

20

Phosphorous

2.17

1.10

5.29

5.18

2.25

2.20

3.36

2.85

1.09

8.92

3.25

2.99

3.39

21

Potassium

2.37

0.19

2.04

1.11

0.93

0.06

0.82

0.76

3.26

3.06

0.94

0.86

1.37

22

Sodium

2.19

1.68

1.94

1.51

2.63

1.64

3.80

2.40

2.91

0.93

2.36

1.51

2.13

23

Total Protein

0.86

0.19

0.28

1.87

0.18

1.33

1.69

0.57

1.65

0.45

3.32

1.42

1.15

24

Triglycerides

1.16

4.62

0.01

4.14

0.43

0.66

0.54

3.98

4.24

0.32

0.64

1.11

1.82

25

Urea

4.97

0.41

1.18

10.50

0.84

0.31

0.57

0.59

2.20

3.65

0.94

1.25

2.28

26

Uric Acid

3.31

0.25

0.64

1.20

0.89

0.01

0.38

1.82

1.91

2.50

4.62

1.34

1.57

27

Cholesterol LDL

3.00

2.68

0.97

1.15

2.89

8.02

3.89

2.67

4.23

0.68

0.86

2.91

2.83

28

Direct TIBC

0.48

0.39

0.16

0.67

5.34

6.27

2.42

0.69

0.21

0.36

2.77

6.59

2.20

Table 5

The EQAS performance of immunoassays in terms of bias%

Sr. No.

Parameter

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Bias%

1

AFP

1.69

2.53

5.32

2.63

6.10

6.20

6.39

12.60

7.39

4.72

3.85

9.62

5.75

2

BHCG

4.52

4.09

1.95

8.63

4.65

3.50

0.03

5.23

0.37

0.74

17.90

1.70

4.44

3

CA 125

2.51

4.08

1.45

5.85

1.88

5.19

0.09

1.26

0.01

1.99

7.99

1.14

2.79

4

CA 19-9

0.38

3.42

1.30

8.22

6.73

0.25

1.97

4.31

1.46

4.37

4.74

3.62

3.40

5

CEA

6.04

0.00

2.56

3.56

1.17

3.13

0.78

0.19

1.58

2.14

8.08

1.13

2.53

6

CK-MB (Mass)

2.92

5.18

0.02

7.89

0.49

4.88

1.61

0.37

0.56

4.62

2.55

6.11

3.10

7

Cortisol

0.02

3.42

1.45

4.68

0.03

3.27

4.32

4.10

0.61

0.30

1.20

1.87

2.11

8

Ferritin

2.38

4.04

2.53

0.33

10.80

1.39

22.10

6.39

8.59

1.86

6.52

0.06

5.58

9

Folate

14.40

3.60

1.86

ND

9.86

21.50

ND

8.91

4.88

ND

15.20

9.90

10.01

10

FSH

4.47

5.91

0.86

0.05

4.32

5.34

5.33

1.57

1.37

4.00

4.52

0.57

3.19

11

Free T3

5.88

1.93

0.84

1.95

1.97

7.03

1.55

26.10

6.57

2.54

5.35

1.98

5.31

12

Free T4

0.51

5.00

0.30

0.47

6.14

6.43

1.96

6.38

6.73

2.41

11.50

4.24

4.34

13

Intact PTH

7.27

15.90

5.77

21.00

6.54

0.15

4.58

1.89

7.68

1.20

19.90

2.73

7.88

14

LH

3.25

1.70

3.66

1.18

1.14

0.83

2.40

1.28

2.97

2.78

8.82

3.92

2.83

15

NT-ProBNP

2.36

1.28

5.53

0.94

2.55

3.43

1.79

4.34

2.40

5.78

6.14

2.22

3.23

16

Prolactin

0.13

1.43

0.39

8.32

2.74

2.88

1.82

0.04

2.20

0.67

9.77

3.33

2.81

17

PSA, Total

8.86

3.77

4.40

7.93

3.78

2.26

2.07

3.94

4.12

1.74

3.73

6.72

4.44

18

Testosterone

3.35

13.60

5.28

0.06

3.86

3.52

3.68

3.82

0.58

2.03

12.10

2.72

4.55

19

TSH

1.39

10.30

3.05

8.18

7.33

0.28

5.70

7.43

3.41

0.80

12.00

4.48

5.36

20

Vitamin B12

1.13

0.13

7.21

6.66

0.51

6.09

3.60

10.20

3.33

4.20

7.03

8.43

4.88

Table 6

Comparison of sigma score of clinical chemistry assays based on CLIA '88 and 2024

S. No.

Parameter

TEa Source

TEa

Sigma Score-L1

Sigma Score-L2

1

Albumin

CLIA '88

10

5.2

6

2

Alanine aminotransferase

CLIA '88

20

7.3

11.4

3

Alkaline phosphatase

CLIA '88

30

9.2

10.4

4

Amylase

CLIA '88

30

7.9

12.1

5

Aspartate aminotransferase

CLIA '88

20

8.6

7.6

6

Bilirubin total

CLIA '88

20 or ± 0.4 mg/dL (greater)

7.5

5.3

7

Bicarbonate

CLIA '88

NA

8

Calcium

CLIA '88

± 1.0 mg/dL

9.7

6.3

9

Chloride

CLIA '88

5

4.1

4

10

Creatine kinase

CLIA '88

30

8.7

7.7

11

Creatinine

CLIA '88

15 or ± 0.3 mg/dL (greater)

6.5

8.13

12

Cholesterol total

CLIA '88

10

5.5

4.1

13

Cholesterol HDL

CLIA '88

30

9.3

11.3

14

Gamma GGT

CLIA '88

NA

15

Glucose

CLIA '88

10 or ± 6 mg/dL (greater)

5.02

5.87

16

Iron total

CLIA '88

20

4

2.2

17

Lactate dehydrogenase

CLIA '88

20

7.4

13.9

18

Lipase

CLIA '88

NA

19

Magnesium

CLIA '88

25

10.8

14.1

20

Phosphorus

CLIA '88

NA

21

Potassium

CLIA '88

± 0.5 mmol/L

9.5

7.2

22

Sodium

CLIA '88

± 4 mmol/L

0.8

1.3

23

Total protein

CLIA '88

10

5

4.9

24

Triglycerides

CLIA '88

25

8.7

12.5

25

Urea

CLIA '88

9 or ± 2 mg/dL (greater)

5.3

4.75

26

Uric acid

CLIA '88

17

12.3

12.8

27

Cholesterol LDL

CLIA '88

NA

28

Total iron-binding capacity

CLIA '88

NA

Table 0

TEa Source

TEa

Sigma Score-L1

Sigma Score-L2

CLIA-2024

8

3.9

4.6

CLIA-2024

15 or ± 6 U/L (greater)

6.0

8.1

CLIA-2024

20

5.5

6.2

CLIA-2024

20

5.1

7.7

CLIA-2024

15 or ± 6 U/L (greater)

6.1

5.4

CLIA-2024

20 or ± 0.4 mg/dL (greater)

7.5

5.3

CLIA-2024

20

3.8

2.8

CLIA-2024

± 1.0 mg/dL

9.7

6.3

CLIA-2024

5

4.1

4

CLIA-2024

20

5.3

4.8

CLIA-2024

10 or ± 0.2 mg/dL (greater)

6.5

5

CLIA-2024

10

5.5

4.1

CLIA-2024

20 or ± 6 mg/dL (greater)

5.9

7.9

CLIA-2024

15

8.06

9.92

CLIA-2024

8 or ± 6 mg/dL (greater)

3.4

4.1

CLIA-2024

15

2.8

1.5

CLIA-2024

15

5.4

10

RCPA

20

15.6

11.2

CLIA-2024

15

6.1

8

CLIA-2024

10

4.2

4

CLIA-2024

± 0.3 mmol/L

4.2

4.5

CLIA-2024

± 4 mmol/L

0.8

1.3

CLIA-2024

8

3.9

3.8

CLIA-2024

15

5

7.1

CLIA-2024

9 or ± 2 mg/dL (greater)

5.3

4.75

CLIA-2024

10

6.7

7

CLIA-2024

20

8.73

9.54

CLIA-2024

20

8.9

7.7

Table 7

Sigma score of immunoassays based on selected TEa

S.No.

Parameter

TEa Source

TEa

Sigma Score-L1

Sigma Score-L2

Sigma Score-L3

1

AFP

CLIA 2024

20

3.8

4.54

3.94

2

Total B-hCG

CLIA 2024

18 or ± 3 mIU/mL (greater)

8.5

4.0

3.5

3

CA-125

CLIA 2024

20

6.4

6.4

6.1

4

CA-19.9

RCPA

15

2.4

2.7

2.7

5

CEA

CLIA 2024

15 or ± 1 ng/dL (greater)

4.5

5.7

5.2

6

CK-MB-Mass

CLIA 2024

25 or ± 3 ng/mL (greater)

4.3

6.3

8.2

7

Cortisol

CLIA 2024

20

5.1

6.1

5.7

8

Ferritin

CLIA 2024

20

3.9

3.8

4.1

9

Folate

CLIA 2024

30 or ± 1 ng/mL (greater)

4.5

2.5

2.4

10

FSH

CLIA 2024

18 or ± 2 IU/L (greater)

6.6

5.4

4.4

11

Free-T3

RCPA

20

3.2

6.7

12

Free-T4

CLIA 2024

15 or ± 0.3 ng/dL (greater)

3.9

5.1

13

iPTH

CLIA 2024

30

5.7

6.2

5.1

14

LH

CLIA 2024

20

4.6

5.3

5.3

15

NT-ProBNP

CLIA 2024

30

5.7

8.4

9.8

16

Prolactin

CLIA 2024

20

6.7

7.9

7.0

17

tPSA

CLIA 2024

20 or ± 0.2 ng/mL (greater)

10.6

7.1

8.2

18

Testosterone

CLIA 2024

30 or ± 20 ng/mL (greater)

7.4

9.4

10.7

19

TSH

CLIA 2024

20 or ± 0.2 mIU/L (greater)

13.1

7.1

4.2

20

Vitamin B12

CLIA 2024

25 or ± 30 pg/mL (greater)

9.9

6.8

9.7

Assays

Twenty-six clinical chemistry assays based on microslide technology, two clinical chemistry assays based on microtip technology (direct LDL Cholesterol and direct TIBC), and 20 immunological assays based on microwell technology were included in the study. These analyte’s performance were monitored using sigma metrics and analyzed on a monthly basis for a period of twelve months. All the assay reagents were obtained from QuidelOrtho, USA, stored, and used as per the manufacturer’s instructions.

Controls

Bio-Rad (California) assayed controls Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 as third-party control were used as internal quality control (IQC) for regular monitoring of the assay performance on a daily basis. The frequency of the control run was in accordance with the guidelines formulated by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). For clinical chemistry assays, Bio-Rad Lyphocheck assayed chemistry controls (Level 1 and 2), and for immunoassays, Bio-Rad Lyphocheck Immunoassay Controls (Level 1, 2 and 3) were used as per the manufacturer’s instructions.  Control storage, reconstitution, and subsequent use were in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Unity Real Time software was used for Quality Control (QC) management. QC outliers were determined based on Westgard rule violations as per laboratory policy. Root cause analysis was carried out for outliers with appropriate corrective and preventive actions and documentation of the same. Further, the clinical laboratory participates in the Bio-Rad External Quality Assessment Services (EQAS) program, which includes monthly analysis and peer group comparison of data received in the form of a detailed report from Bio-Rad. Both IQC and EQAS results were included in this study.

QC run frequency

  1. Chemistry: Every 8 hours, 2-level controls are processed in the morning, followed by alternating single levels every 8 hours. The frequency of QC runs in a day is 3.

  2. Immunoassay: Every 8 hours, 2-level controls are processed in the morning for all immunoassay parameters, followed by a single level of control processed for Thyroid profile hormones and Beta hCG in the evening. For remaining immunoassay parameters, a single level of QC is processed in the evening time, only on an ad-hoc basis, as and when a test request is received.

Documentation of CA/PA

The laboratory has its own format for recording CA/PA and RCA of any outlier events (both IQC and EQAS). Diligent documentation is periodically reviewed. This review has helped us in identifying recurring issues and addressing them in collaboration with the manufacturer.

Statistical Analysis

Accuracy and precision in the performance of each assay were calculated as both % of Bias and % of coefficient of variation (CV). Accuracy in terms of Bias% was calculated based on the EQAS report by using the following formula:

Bias% = (EQAS result reported by laboratory – Peer group mean value)/(Peer group mean value) * 100

The Bias% was calculated for 12 months from January to December 2023 based on the performance of the analytes in the EQAS cycle, and the mean Bias% was calculated. Precision in terms of CV% was calculated based on the IQC results obtained for 2 (or 3) levels of controls. Monthly data in terms of mean (X), standard deviation (SD), and CV% for all analytes across each level were recorded, and the average CV% for all the levels of controls was calculated. The global specifications for the performance of various analytes in clinical laboratories are defined in terms of total allowable error limits (TEa). For the application of sigma metrics, the total allowable error goal was sourced from Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act (CLIA) Acceptance limits for Proficiency testing 2024 along with old AP (CLIA 1988).7 In CLIA 1988, TEa was available only for 22 out of 28 clinical chemistry assays and 6 out of 20 immunoassays evaluated in this study. In CLIA 2024, when TEa was not available for 3 assays (Lipase, CA19.9 and Free T3), it was sourced from RCPA allowable limits of performance for Biochemistry for sigma score calculation.8 When compared to CLIA 1988, the total allowable error was made stringent in CLIA 2024. Hence, the sigma score analysis was made and compared based on the total allowable error limit given in both CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024. For the immunoassays, since the TEa is available only for 6 out of 20 parameters in CLIA 1988 guidelines, the sigma score analysis was done only using TEa sourced from CLIA 2024.

With the total allowable error (TEa), mean Bias% and CV%, the sigma score was measured for each analyte using the formula:

Sigma = TEa – Bias%/CV%

The performance of analytes in terms of sigma score for the period of 12 months was calculated and tabulated.

The assays performing at ≥ 6 sigma level were considered excellent. The analytes performing at <5.9 to ≥3 sigma level were considered as good. The analytes performing at < 3 sigma were considered poor, which needs stringent monitoring and improvement.  The assays performing at a sigma score below 6 provide the scope for continuous quality improvement. The root cause for the assay performance below 6 sigma may be either imprecision or inaccuracy, or both.  The other reason for an assay performing below 6 sigma may be due to the stringent TEa limit.  All the assays performing at < 6 sigma were analyzed using a quality tool called the Quality Goal Index (QGI). The QGI was calculated using the formula.

QGI = Bias/1.5 * %CV

If the QGI is below 0.8 for an assay, the root cause may be imprecision. If the QGI is above 1.2, the root cause may be inaccuracy. If the QGI is between 0.8–1.2, the root cause may be both inaccuracy and imprecision. Accordingly, the required corrective and/or preventive action was implemented.

Results

A total of 48 assays (26 assays based on VITROS MicroSlide technology, 2 assays based on VITROS MicroTip Technology, and 20 assays based on VITROS MicroWell Technology) were analyzed for their performance in VITROS XT 7600 integrated system based on sigma metrics (Table 1). The performance of assays in terms of precision (CV%) and accuracy (Bias%) in the observation period of 12 months are tabulated (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5). The obtained sigma scores at both level 1 and level 2 controls and, where available, level 3 controls based on the TEa sourced are tabulated (Table 6, Table 8).

Based on the sigma score obtained, the assay performance was classified into 4 categories viz., world-class performance (with > 6 sigma), good performance (sigma score 5–6), optimum performance (sigma score 3–5), and performance which needs more focus and improvement (Sigma score < 3.0). The number of analytes with performance as per the above-mentioned classification based on CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 is represented in the form of a pie chart (Figure 1 a, b).

With the TEa source from CLIA 1988, out of 22 clinical chemistry assays, 14 assays (64%) showed world-class performance with a sigma score of > 6.0; 6 assays (27%) showed good to moderate performance with a sigma score between 3.0 and 5.9; 2 parameters (9%) showed performance with sigma score of < 3.0 which needs to be focused for quality improvement. With the TEa source from CLIA 2024, out of 28 assays, 13 assays (46%) showed world-class performance with a sigma score of > 6.0; 12 assays (43%) showed good to moderate performance, and 3 assays (11%) showed performance with the sigma score of <3.0. Sodium assay showed performance below 3.0 because of the very narrow TEa of around 3%.

With the TEa source from CLIA 2024 and RCPA, out of 20 immunoassays, 11 assays (55%) showed world-class performance with a sigma score of >6.0; 7 assays (35%) showed good to moderate performance with a sigma score between 3.0 to 5.9 and 2 assays (10%) showed performance with the sigma score of <3.0. CA 19.9 assay showed performance below 3.0 because of the narrow TEa sourced from RCPA. Overall, most of the assays showed excellent performance on the sigma scale.

The performance of assays with < 6.0 sigma score was analyzed using the QGI tool to identify the possible causes for the sigma score of < 6.0.  Based on the data, it was observed that marginal improvement is required to improve the accuracy and/or precision of the assays to move most of the assays to the performance level of > 6.0 sigma.

Discussion

Sigma metrics is a quality management tool used in clinical laboratories to monitor the performance of the assays and to work towards continuous quality improvement in the process.  It provides a quantitative measurement of the performance of each assay based on the allowable error limit specified and the scope for quality improvement of each assay as per the requirement.3

In our study, the majority of the parameters (about 68% of the Clinical Chemistry assays and 75% of Immunoassays) are performing well with a sigma score of above 5.0 with the TEa source from CLIA 2024.  About 21% of the Clinical Chemistry assays and 15% of Immunoassays are performing satisfactorily, with a sigma score between 3.0 to 4.9.  Only 3 assays, viz., Sodium, Iron, and Bicarbonate, showed performance with a sigma score of < 3 either with any one level of control or both.  With the TEa source from CLIA 1988, about 86% of Clinical Chemistry assays are performing at a sigma score of > 5.0, and about 5% of the assays are performing satisfactorily with a sigma score between 3.0 to 4.9.  The reason for this variation observed between CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 is due to the narrow Total allowable error limit for 16  out of 22 assays  like Amylase (TEa is revised from 30% to 20%); Alkaline phosphatase (30% to 20%); Creatinine (15% to 10%); Glucose (10% to 8%), Potassium (+/- 0.5 to 0.3 mmol/L), etc.

The sodium assay showed a performance below 3.0 sigma because of the very narrow TEa of around 3% in both CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024. Joshi and Patel (2022) reported that Sodium is likely to remain at low levels of sigma across methods/analyzers unless the guidelines revise the TEa to a higher level.9 Poor sigma performance of electrolytes especially Sodium is not unique to our study, even though we achieved the CV% around 0.8% and bias% around 1.6. Heerden et al., 2022, reported that tight quality specifications are expected to give low sigma results.10

Another assay which showed performance below 3.0 sigma score for level 2 control was bicarbonate. The root cause for this performance is due to imprecision observed with level 2 control. Bicarbonate is considered as less stable as it is present in equilibrium with carbon dioxide. If there is exposure to air or if the control sample is not properly sealed and stored, carbon dioxide can escape, leading to imprecision.11 So, it is crucial to follow proper sample handling and processing procedures. Chakravarty et al., 2017 reported the low sigma score of Bicarbonate assay in both level 1 and 2 controls because of imprecision observed due to volatile nature of analyte in the sample.12

In this study, Iron showed performance below 3.0 sigma score for both level 1 and level 2 controls. One of the possible reasons for this performance is the narrow TEa of 15% of CLIA 2024 and the higher CV% observed with level 2 control having a low value (< 70 ug/dL) of Iron. TEa of Desirable Biological Variation Database Specification for Iron is 31%. With this TEa of 31%, the level of performance is increased to Sigma score of 6.6 and 3.7 for level 1 and level 2 control. As per the QGI, the lower level of sigma score is due to imprecision observed in IQC performance. Iron can undergo changes in its chemical form and reactivity over time, especially in the presence of oxygen and other reactive substances in control fluids. This instability can lead to imprecision while measuring iron levels in control samples. It is recommended that precautions be followed while handling, processing, and storing control fluids to maintain the stability of iron in control samples.

In the immunoassay, all parameters showed excellent performance except for folate, which showed performance below 3.0 sigma score for both level 2 and level 3 control. The obtained sigma scores were 2.5 and 2.4.  This is majorly due to the slightly higher imprecision observed with the controls. The obtained CV% was around 8%, which is comparable with the manufacturer’s performance characteristics of folate assay. Owen and Roberts, 2003, while doing a comparative study between 5 different folate assays, reported that the imprecision of all methods was acceptable with coefficients of variation of less than 10%, even at low folate concentrations, with the exception of the Elecsys 2010 method which had an overall imprecision of 16% at the lowest concentration of folate examined.13 VITROS 19.9 assay showed the performance with a sigma score between 2.4 to 2.7 for all 3 level controls with the TEa of 15% sourced from RCPA.  With TEa from Desirable Biological Variation Database Specification (23%), the level of performance was increased above 4.0 sigma.  Marginal improvement in terms of imprecision in IQC, as well as Bias in EQAS performance, helps to enhance the sigma score of folate.

Our study showed that both clinical chemistry and immunoassays performed in the VITROS XT 7600 Integrated system could produce results with both accuracy and precision for the majority of the assays. Miller and Gammie, 2024 developed an algorithm to extract the QC data from more than 100 VITROS analyzers and derived the sigma metric for 115 analytes.14 In this analysis, 79 out of 115 (68.7%) of the assays assessed achieved >6 sigma, and 98 out of 115 (85.2%) achieved > 5 sigma. Sigma metrics is a great quality tool for accessing the analytical performance of all assays in the clinical laboratory, but there are some limitations for a few assays like sodium. For those assays, it is also important to monitor the performance of assays in terms of precision in IQC and accuracy in EQAS, in comparison with the manufacturer’s claim. Sigma score assessment may also help the laboratories to select the IQC rules for those assays that are performing with high sigma values to reduce false rejections, and stringent rules may be followed for those assays that are performing with low sigma values based on the clinical needs.15

Conclusion

This study showed that about 90% of clinical chemistry and immunoassays produced results with excellent performance in sigma scale. The analysis helped to identify the root causes for the low performance of few assays with sigma score below 3.0 and performance improvement steps undertaken.

Author Ethical Responsibilities

The ethical committee waiver was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), Medanta Lucknow, IEC – Registration No. ECR/1529/Inst/UP/2021 vide letter dated 11.07.2024, as the study doesn’t involve any patient data.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Source of Funding

None.

Acknowledgment

We thank Medanta Hospital for allowing us to do the study and the lab technicians who performed the tests. We thank Amit Awasthi, Technologist, Department of Biochemistry, Medanta Hospital, Lucknow, for his support in the conduct of the tests.

References

1 

M Plebani M Laposata G Lippi A manifesto for the future of laboratory medicine professionalsClin Chim Acta20194894952

2 

V Kaur PK Kare H Madaan Quality control in a clinical laboratoryAdvances in Biochemistry and Applications in Medicine4Open AccessUSA2018

3 

JS Koshy A Raza Sigma metrics in quality control: An innovative toolInt J Clin Biochem Res2021842539

4 

BV Kumar T Mohan Sigma metrics as a tool for evaluating the performance of internal quality control in a clinical chemistry laboratoryJ Lab Physicians20181021949

5 

S Westgard H Bayat JO Westgard Analytical sigma metrics: A review of six sigma implementation tools for medical laboratoriesBiochem Med (Zagreb)2018282020502

6 

K Hens M Berth D Armbruster S Westgard Sigma metrics used to assess analytical quality of clinical chemistry assays: Importance of the allowable total error (TEa) targetClin Chem Lab Med201452797380

7 

J Westgard 2024 CLIA Proposed Acceptance Limits for Proficiency testinghttps://www.westgard.com/2024-clia-requirements.htm

8 

J Westgard RCPA Allowable Limits of Performance for Biochemistry2020https://westgard.com/clia-a-quality/quality-requirements/747-rcpa-biochemistry.html

9 

PM Joshi UK Patel Performance evaluation of routine analytes using six sigma principle in a stand-alone clinical laboratoryInt J Clin Biochem Res20229212734

10 

MV Heerden JA George S Khoza The application of sigma metrics in the laboratory to assess quality control processes in South AfricaAfr J Lab Med20221111344

11 

RM Centor HK Walker WD Hall JW Hurst Chapter 196: Serum total carbon dioxideClinical Methods : The History, Physical and Laboratory Examinations3rdBoston: Butterworths1990

12 

S Chakravarthy S Ramanathan S Smitha KV Vijayakumar T Nallathambi S Micheal Phoenix in the lab: The sigma metrics during Chennai’s worst disaster: Monitoring and management of the Quality Management System (QMS)IJPLM201731OA1

13 

WE Owen WL Roberts Comparison of five automated serum and whole blood folate assaysAm J Clin Pathol200312011216

14 

JJ Millera AJ Gammieb A novel approach for routinely assessing laboratory sigma metrics for a broad range of automated assaysJ Appl Lab Med20249347792

15 

Z Geto T Getahun T Lejisa Y Tolcha D Bikila C Bashea Evaluation of sigma metrics and Westgard rule selection and implementation of internal quality control in clinical chemistry reference laboratoryIndian J Clin Biochem202237328593Ethiopian Public Health Institute



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Article type

Original Article


Article page

129-141


Authors Details

Bhavana Bais, Kriti Singh, Varijendra Tripathi, K Cheirmaraj


Article History

Received : 14-07-2024

Accepted : 27-07-2024


Article Metrics


View Article As

 


Downlaod Files