English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The debate comparing the benefits of measurement uncertainty (uncertainty in measurement, MU) with total error (TE) for the assessment of laboratory performance continues. The summary recently provided in this journal by members of the Task and Finish Group on Total Error (TFG-TE) of the EFLM put the arguments into clear perspective. Even though there is generally strong support for TE in many laboratories, some of the arguments proposed for its on-going support require further comment. In a recent opinion which focused directly on the TFG-TE summary, several potentially confusing statements regarding ISO15189 and the  Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement  (GUM) were again promulgated to promote TE methods for assessing uncertainty in laboratory measurement. In this opinion, we present an alternative view of the key issues and outline our views with regard to the relationship between ISO15189, uncertainty in measurement and the GUM.

Uncertainty in measurement and total error: different roads to the same quality destination?