 |
|
- Main page
- News
- RJLabM Credits
- Archive
- Instructions for authors
- Online applications
- Editorial
- About us
-
Links
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
- Acta Marisiensis Seria Medica
- Bacteriologia, Virusologia, Parazitologia, Epidemiologia
- Biochemia Medica
- Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
- Clinical Chemistry
- Clinica Chimica Acta
- Documenta Haematologica
- Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology
- Biostatistics and web search strategies (Romanian)
- How to spot a statistical problem
- Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature
ISSN online: 2284-5623
ISSN-L: 1841-6624
Rejection rate (2020): 75%
Journal Metrics
Impact Factor 0.5 Five Year Impact Factor 0.5 JCI 0.12
Log in
Concept, Design & Programming
Dr. Adrian Man
Original professional paper Atellica CH 930 chemistry analyzer versus Cobas 6000 c501 and Architect ci4100 - a multi-analyte method comparison Imola Györfi, Krisztina Pál, Ion Bogdan Mănescu, Oana R. Oprea, Minodora Dobreanu
Correspondence should be addressed to: Ion Bogdan Mănescu
Abstract: Large clinical laboratories often rely on multiple chemistry analyzers. However, when a new analyzer is introduced, the laboratory must establish whether the old and new methods are comparable and can be used interchangeably. In this study, we compared the newly introduced Atellica CH930 chemistry analyzer with the already established Architect ci4100 and Cobas 6000 c501 from our laboratory. Patient samples were randomly selected from daily routine testing and a total of 22 analytes were investigated. Total error (TEobs) between test (Atellica) and comparative (Architect and Cobas) methods was calculated at relevant medical decision levels (MDL). For demonstrative purposes, the assessment of method comparability was based on three different criteria: allowable total error (TEa) derived from biological variation (BV), CLIA proficiency testing criteria for acceptable analytical performance, and CLIA-calculated Sigma metrics. These sets of analytical performance specifications were also compared, and their strengths and limitations are discussed in this paper. Performance of Atellica CH930 against Architect ci4100 was acceptable or nearly acceptable at 82%, 95%, and 64% of the 22 investigated MDLs across 9 analytes, according to BV-TEa, CLIA-TEa, and CLIA-calculated Sigma metrics, respectively. Similarly, performance of Atellica CH930 against Cobas 6000 c501 was acceptable or nearly acceptable at 61%, 93%, and 63% of the 54 investigated MDLs across 22 analytes, according to BV-TEa, CLIA-TEa, and CLIA-calculated Sigma metrics, respectively. However, method comparability should not be evaluated by a “one size fits all” approach as some analytes require different criteria of acceptability, ideally based on medically allowable error and clinical outcome.
Received: 21.7.2021 |
|||||
|
Download full text PDF (1458 KB) |
||||
|
Györfi I, Pál K, Mănescu IB, Oprea OR, Dobreanu M. Atellica CH 930 chemistry analyzer versus Cobas 6000 c501 and Architect ci4100 - a multi-analyte method comparison. Rev Romana Med Lab. 2021;29(4):421-38. DOI:10.2478/rrlm-2021-0027
|
|||||