Evaluates a pilot proficiency testing programme for biospecimens in Thailand, implying enhanced national standards.
Aims To address the absence of nationally accessible proficiency testing (PT) for biospecimens in Thailand, we developed and evaluated a pilot PT programme consisting of four schemes covering DNA extraction, quantification, purity and integrity assessment. Methods The pilot PT programme comprised two processing schemes: DNA extraction from whole blood (P-DNABLD) and frozen tissue (P-DNAFRT) and two testing schemes: DNA quantification and purity (T-DNAQ) and DNA integrity (T-DNAI). All schemes were conducted in accordance with ISO/IEC 17043:2023 and ISO 13528:2022. PT items were assessed for homogeneity and stability, and participant performance was evaluated based on consensus values using z - or z ′-scores. Results All PT items satisfied the ISO 13528:2022 requirements for homogeneity and stability after accounting for instability-related uncertainty in T-DNAQ. 30 laboratories participated nationwide in at least one scheme (P-DNABLD, n=28; P-DNAFRT, n=17; T-DNAQ, n=29; T-DNAI, n=13). All PT items were received within 3 days of dispatch, with ≥90% arriving within the acceptable temperature range. DNA extraction yield-related measurands demonstrated substantial interlaboratory variability (CV 78.2‒95.3%), whereas purity and integrity measurands were more consistent (CV 1.3‒11.2%). In T-DNAQ, A 260 /A 230 showed the greatest interlaboratory variability (CV 8.2‒16.4%); within-platform variability was low in T-DNAI. Across all schemes, ≥75% of participants achieved at least Satisfactory performance (|z or z′| ≤ 2.0). Direct costs were approximately 12% of those of comparable international PT schemes. Conclusions This pilot demonstrates the feasibility and accessibility of a nationally coordinated PT programme for biospecimens and supports the establishment of a sustainable PT framework to harmonise biospecimen quality practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Apisampinvong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: