Visser 2006 Accred Qual Asur: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Visser RG (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual Assur 10:521-526. |authors=Visser...") ย |
No edit summary ย |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Visser RGย (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual | |title=Visser RGย (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual Asur 10:521-526. | ||
|info=[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-005-0051-2 Springer Link] | |||
|authors=Visser RG | |authors=Visser RG | ||
|year=2006 | |year=2006 | ||
|journal=Accred Qual | |journal=Accred Qual Asur | ||
|abstract=Guidelines are given for the evaluation of proficiency test (PT) results in order to increase the | |abstract=Guidelines are given for the evaluation of proficiency test (PT) results in order to increase the | ||
effectivity of PT participation. For better understanding, some statistical background is given along with some examples to show the effects of the choices made by the PT provider. The calculation method of the assigned value and the selection of the standard deviation both affect the z-score that is used by the participating laboratory to judge the quality of its performance in the PT. Therefore, the participating laboratory is advised to use the PT results with care and, if necessary, to recalculate the z-scores. Finally, advice is given on how not to follow up bad PT results along with some valuable steps that could be part of an effective follow-up procedure | effectivity of PT participation. For better understanding, some statistical background is given along with some examples to show the effects of the choices made by the PT provider. The calculation method of the assigned value and the selection of the standard deviation both affect the z-score that is used by the participating laboratory to judge the quality of its performance in the PT. Therefore, the participating laboratory is advised to use the PT results with care and, if necessary, to recalculate the z-scores. Finally, advice is given on how not to follow up bad PT results along with some valuable steps that could be part of an effective follow-up procedure | ||
Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Labeling | {{Labeling | ||
|additional= | |additional=QM | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 12:06, 12 March 2024
Visser RG (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual Asur 10:521-526. |
Visser RG (2006) Accred Qual Asur
Abstract: Guidelines are given for the evaluation of proficiency test (PT) results in order to increase the effectivity of PT participation. For better understanding, some statistical background is given along with some examples to show the effects of the choices made by the PT provider. The calculation method of the assigned value and the selection of the standard deviation both affect the z-score that is used by the participating laboratory to judge the quality of its performance in the PT. Therefore, the participating laboratory is advised to use the PT results with care and, if necessary, to recalculate the z-scores. Finally, advice is given on how not to follow up bad PT results along with some valuable steps that could be part of an effective follow-up procedure โข Keywords: Proficiency test, Assigned value, Standard deviation, z-score, Root cause analysis, Corrective action, Effectivity โข Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Labels:
QM