Allergy: Evaluation of 16 years (2007–2022) results of the shared external quality assessment program in Belgium, Finland, Portugal and The Netherlands

Objectives: This paper evaluates 16 year results of the Allergy EQA program shared by EQA organisers in Belgium, Finland, Portugal, and The Netherlands. Methods: The performance of Thermo Fisher and Siemens user groups (in terms of concordance between both groups, between laboratory CV, prevalence of clinically significant errors) and suitability of samples (stability and validity of dilution of patient samples) are evaluated using data of 192 samples in the EQA programs from 2007 to 2022. Measurands covered are total IgE, screens and mixes, specific IgE extracts and allergen components. Resul... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Heron, Michiel
Schreurs, Marco W.J.
Haagen, Inez-Anne
China, Bernard
Faria, Ana Paula
Vanhanen, Anna-Riitta
Thelen, Marc
Weykamp, Cas W.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2024
Verlag/Hrsg.: De Gruyter
Schlagwörter: Allergy / EQA Program / AEQ / Between Laboratory CV / Sample Quality / External Quality Assessment / Thermo Fisher / Siemens / Programa Nacional de Avaliação Externa da Qualidade / PNAEQ / Alergias / Avaliação Externa da Qualidade
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29177283
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : http://hdl.handle.net/10400.18/8852

Objectives: This paper evaluates 16 year results of the Allergy EQA program shared by EQA organisers in Belgium, Finland, Portugal, and The Netherlands. Methods: The performance of Thermo Fisher and Siemens user groups (in terms of concordance between both groups, between laboratory CV, prevalence of clinically significant errors) and suitability of samples (stability and validity of dilution of patient samples) are evaluated using data of 192 samples in the EQA programs from 2007 to 2022. Measurands covered are total IgE, screens and mixes, specific IgE extracts and allergen components. Results: There is perfect (53 %), acceptable (40 %) and poor (6 %) concordance between both method groups. In case of poor concordance the best fit with clinical data is seen for Thermo Fisher (56 %) and Siemens (26 %) respectively. The between laboratory CV evolves from 7.8 to 6.6 % (Thermo Fisher) and 7.3 to 7.7 % (Siemens). The prevalence of blunders by individual laboratories is stable for Siemens (0.4 %) and drops from 0.4 to 0.2 % for Thermo Fisher users. For IgE, the between year CV of the mean of both user groups is 1 %, and a fifteen-fold dilution of a patient sample has an impact of 2 and 4 % on the recovery of Thermo Fisher and Siemens user groups. Conclusions: The analytical performance of Thermo Fisher is slightly better than that of Siemens users but the clinical impact of this difference is limited. Stability of the sample and the low impact of dilution on the recovery of measurands demonstrates the suitability for purpose of the EQA program. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion