This single-center study evaluated 36 clinical chemistry analytes at low/high internal quality control (IQC) levels by integrating the sigma values and approximate expanded uncertainty (U).The sigma values were calculated from the total allowable error (TEa), the six-month IQC coefficient of variation (CV 6-month ), and external quality assessment (EQA) bias.U was approximated from CV 6-month and the absolute EQA bias using a coverage factor of k=2; the U/TEa ratios expressed U relative to TEa.Low/high IQC comparisons and associations used the Wilcoxon signed-rank and Spearman tests, respectively.At low/ high IQC levels, 72.2% and 83.3% of analytes showed excellent performance, respectively.High-level IQC had higher sigma values (P<0.001) but lower U (P=0.005) and U/TEa ratios (P<0.001).Low-level creatinine was the only analyte with U/TEa ≥1.Six analytes (16.7%) shifted to better integrated performance categories at the high level, with none shifting to poorer categories.The CV-related components predominated in 63.9% and 80.6% of analytes, respectively, and predominant component classification changed between levels in 10 analytes (27.8%).The sigma values were strongly negatively correlated with U/TEa at both levels (ρ=-0.88,P<0.001), reflecting their shared calculation structure.This exploratory framework may identify concentration-dependent performance differences and prioritize analytes and error components for further review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KIM et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: