摘要
目的：对用室间质评数据计算临床生化检验偏倚的两种方法进行比较分析.方法：在本室2015-2016两年的卫生部室间质评数据中,选择跟本室室内质控浓度接近的数据参与计算.每个项目分为低浓度和高浓度两个水平,每个水平有6个数据,每组数据同时计算RMS及绝对值和的均值作为偏倚指标,采用行业标准WS/T 403-2012作为质量规范.总共检测了19项常规生化项目K,Na,Cl,Ca,P,ALT,AST,TP,ALB,ALP,GGT,TBIL,Glu,UREA,CREA,UA,TG,CHOL,CK.结果：1/2TEa标准比允许偏倚标准宽松;同一组数据,绝对值和的均值都小于方法和实验室偏倚（RMSbias）;ALT,AST,TBIL的低浓度水平两种方法计算的偏倚,都大于允许偏倚B,但都小于1/2TEa.TP,ALB的低浓度水平,方法和实验室偏倚大于允许偏倚B,但小于1/2Tea.其他检测项目,两种方法计算的偏倚,都符合两种质量要求.结论：作为偏倚指标,方法和实验室偏倚（RMSbias）优于绝对值和的均值.
Objective： To evaluate the two methods of calculating the bias in clinical chemistry determination with EQA data. Methods： Among the data ofEQA ofNCCL fi-om 2015 to 2016, we selected the data whose concentrations were close to the internal quality control concentrations. Each item was divided into low and high concentrations. Each concentration had 6 data, which were used to calculate the value of RMSbias and mean of absolute sum as Bias index. The National Health Industry Standard WS/T 403-2012 was used as the quality specification. A total of 19 routine biochemical items （K, Na, C1, Ca, P, ALT, AST, TP, ALB, ALP, GGT, TBIL, Glu,, UREA, CREA, UA, TG, CHOL, CI0 were tested. Results： 1/2TEa standard was easier than allowable bias standard; The values of mean of absolute sum were less than RMS when using the same data; The bias calculated by the two methods for ALT, AST, and TBIL at low concentrations were greater than the allowable bias, but less than 1/2TEa. At low concentration of TP and ALB, P,.MSu~ were greater than allowable bias, but less than 1~2TEa. The bias calculated by the two methods for other items met two quality requirements. Conclusion： As bias index, RMSbias is better than mean of absolute sum.
出处
《医学检验与临床》
2017年第9期18-21,共4页
Medical Laboratory Science and Clinics
关键词
室间质评
临床化学
偏倚
质量控制
质量规范
External quality assessment
Clinical chemistry
Bias
Quality control
Quality specification
