This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The article tries to reply to the following three questions: Are External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS) really fit for purpose? Are all schemes equivalent and sufficiently harmonized? Is the role of EQAS similar and necessary in all branches of laboratory medicine? Although the reply to the first two questions is, unfortunately, negative for several reasons (lack of commutable material with reference method values, EQAS with different scopes, etc.), the reply to the third one is positive: EQAS are a necessary source of information on trueness and accuracy and must be fully developed for all the branches of the clinical laboratory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ceriotti et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: