Open AccessA method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays (clinical biochemical, blood count, immunological, and qPCR) to evaluate analytical performance
Author(s) -
Sun Chenxi,
Wang Dongxia,
Xu Henggui,
Yang Guang,
Yan Xiaomei,
Liu Hui
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.24087
Subject(s) - resolution (logic) , hematology analyzer , reliability (semiconductor) , experimental data , spectrum analyzer , correlation coefficient , chromatography , analytical chemistry (journal) , repeatability , chemistry , statistics , mathematics , computer science , pathology , medicine , optics , physics , artificial intelligence , power (physics) , quantum mechanics
Abstract Background The measurement method for experimental resolution and related data to evaluate analytical performance is poorly explored in clinical research. We established a method to measure the experimental resolution of clinical tests, including biochemical tests, automatic hematology analyzer methods, immunoassays, chemical experiments, and qPCR, to evaluate their analytical performance. Methods Serially diluted samples in equal proportions were measured, and correlation analysis was performed between the relative concentration and the measured value. Results were accepted for p ≤ 0.01 of the correlation coefficient. The minimum concentration gradient (eg, 10%) was defined as the experimental resolution. For this method, the smaller the value, the higher the experimental resolution and the better the analytical performance. Results The experimental resolution of the most common biochemical indices reached 10%, with some even reaching 1%. The results of most counting experiments showed experimental resolution up to 10%, whereas the experimental resolution of the classical chemical assays reached 1%. Unexpectedly, the experimental resolution of more sensitive assays, such as immunoassays was only 25% when using the manual method and 10% for qPCR. Conclusion This study established a method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays and provides a new index for evaluating the reliability of methods in clinical laboratories.