Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Chemistry
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Clinical Chemistry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
Research ArticleOpinion

Error Methods Are More Practical, But Uncertainty Methods May Still Be Preferred

James O. Westgard
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.284406 Published March 2018
James O. Westgard
University of Wisconsin School of Public Health and Westgard QC, Inc., Madison WI.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: james@westgard.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

“Error methods—compared with uncertainty methods—offer simpler, more intuitive and practical procedures for calculating measurement uncertainty and conducting quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, uncertainty methods are preferred in other fields of sciences as reflected by the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.” (1).

Those are the opening sentences in the report from the Total Error Task and Finish Group (TE-TFG)2 of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (1). The TE-TFG was appointed by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine as 1 of the outcomes from the 2014 Milan conference on quality specifications (2) to resolve issues regarding total analytical error (TAE) vs measurement uncertainty (MU).

The focus of the 2014 Milan meeting was to review existing recommendations for setting analytical performance specifications and to update the guidelines from the 1999 Stockholm Consensus Conference. One outcome was that the hierarchy of goal-setting models was reduced from 5 to 3 classes—specific models for clinical use, general models related to individual and population variation, and “state-of-the-art” recommendations from expert groups and proficiency testing (PT) and external quality assessment (EQA) programs. Although the PT/EQA criteria for acceptable performance fall into the lowest class, these survey programs are well established globally and require goals for TAE because only a single measurement is allowed on survey samples and that measurement is subject to both random and systematic errors, i.e., precision and trueness. Thus, there is an ongoing need for the TAE model and goals for TAE.

Background

TAE vs MU became an issue when ISO 15189 was published in 2007 and required that the “uncertainty of results” be considered in the accreditation of a medical laboratory (3). Another ISO document, Guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), became the obvious source for satisfying this …

View Full Text

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$15.00

Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?
Forgot your username or password?

Log in through your institution

If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Chemistry: 64 (4)
Vol. 64, Issue 4
April 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • Audio summary of this issue
Print
Share
Error Methods Are More Practical, But Uncertainty Methods May Still Be Preferred
James O. Westgard
Clinical Chemistry Apr 2018, 64 (4) 636-638; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.284406
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Error Methods Are More Practical, But Uncertainty Methods May Still Be Preferred
James O. Westgard
Clinical Chemistry Apr 2018, 64 (4) 636-638; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.284406

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Background
    • Error Model vs Uncertainty Model
    • Significance and Uncertainty of Bias
    • Analytical Errors vs Preanalytic and Postanalytic Errors
    • Measurement Uncertainty vs Diagnostic Uncertainty
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Is it Time to Test the Effect of Weight Loss on Testosterone?
  • Metabolic Factors and Prostate Cancer Risk
  • Including Sex and Gender in the Scientific Conversation
Show more Opinion

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • SUBJECT AREAS
    • Laboratory Management

Options

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • RSS

Other Publications

  • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Footer logo

© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Powered by HighWire