论文部分内容阅读
目的比较62所实验室AFP项目在室间质评(EQA)和室内质控比对(IQCC)中评价结果的差异,分析2种外部质量评价方法的特点。方法平行开展AFP项目的 EQA和IQCC活动,将62所实验室按照室内质控品批号和检测系统品牌分为9个观测组,并按照不同观测时间,分别计算各组在EQA和IQCC中的各种统计量值和评价指标。结果62所实验室不精密度均<7.01%。IQCC提示7个实验室可能存在质量异常;62所实验室EQA成绩均为100分。9个观测组全月CVday均值(3.93%~12.10%)高于CVEmax(1.56%~6.22%)。3个观测组的CVday整月高于其CVEmax,IQC5&Roche组的单日最大值达到其CVEmax的4倍。结论 IQCC较EQA更能敏感地提示出质量异常实验室,2种评价活动相结合,可综合提高外部质量评价活动对区域内实验室的质量评价能力。
Objective To compare the differences of evaluation results between 62 laboratory AFP projects in EQA and IQCC, and analyze the characteristics of 2 external quality assessment methods. Methods The EQA and IQCC activities of AFP projects were carried out in parallel. The 62 laboratories were divided into 9 observation groups according to the indoor QC lot number and the testing system brand. According to different observation time, Species statistics and evaluation index. The results of 62 laboratory inaccuracies were <7.01%. The IQCC suggested that there might be quality abnormalities in seven laboratories and 62 lab EQA scores of 100. The average CVday mean (3.93% ~ 12.10%) in 9 observation groups was higher than CVEmax (1.56% ~ 6.22%). The CVday throughout the three observation groups was higher than their CVEmax throughout the month, and the IQC5 & Roche group had a single-day maximum of four times its CVEmax. Conclusion IQCC is more sensitive than EQA to suggest laboratory of abnormal quality, combining two evaluation activities, which can comprehensively improve the quality evaluation of laboratory in the region by external quality evaluation activities.