Expert workshop report evaluates Model 1b analytical performance specifications for in vitro diagnostics, highlighting criteria for laboratory quality control and clinical utility.
diagnostic medical devices (IVD MD) meet regulatory and quality standards before market release; for external quality assurance assessments; for quality control, monitoring reagent lot-to-lot variability, and allowing preanalytical variation assessments in labs; and for guiding purchasing decisions by healthcare providers, reimbursement agencies, and both public and private insurers. Over the years, various systems and projects have been established to evaluate the current state of the art (Model 3) of IVD MD through external quality assurance (EQA). Different national and international EQA providers often use distinct acceptance criteria tailored to their organisational goals and local healthcare settings. Model 2, which relies on biological variation data, has been effectively supported by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine's database and its interactive tools for calculating APS (www.biologicalvariation.eu). Nonetheless, debates continue about optimal APS setting methods and the most suitable models for different measurands and scenarios. To explore these issues further, workshops were held in Prague in 2023 and 2025. This report presents the expert presentations from the 2025 workshop, which exclusively focused on APS based on Model 1b.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horvath et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: