Difference between revisions of "Visser 2006 Accred Qual Asur"
(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...") |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | |editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Cited by == | |||
{{Template:Cited by Iglesias-Gonzalez 2021 MitoFit PT}} | |||
{{Labeling | {{Labeling | ||
|additional=MitoFit 2021 PT | |additional=MitoFit 2021 PT | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 13:19, 26 January 2021
| Visser RG (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual Assur 10:521-526. |
Visser RG (2006) Accred Qual Assur
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 • Keywords: Proficiency test, Assigned value, Standard deviation, z-score, Root cause analysis, Corrective action, Effectivity • Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Cited by
- Iglesias-Gonzalez et al (2021) Proficiency test in mt-respiration: A necessary tool for reliable and reproducible results. MitoFit Preprints 2021 (in prep).
Labels:
MitoFit 2021 PT
