A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests

The validation and verification of laboratory methods and procedures before their use in clinical testing is essential for providing a safe and useful service to clinicians and patients. This paper outlines the principles of validation and verification in the context of clinical human molecular genetic testing. We describe implementation processes, types of tests and their key validation components, and suggest some relevant statistical approaches that can be used by individual laboratories to ensure that tests are conducted to defined standards.

[1]  Leonard Steinborn,et al.  International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories , 2004 .

[2]  Rn Carey,et al.  CLSI/NCCLS: EP15-A2. User verification of performance for precision and trueness , 2006 .

[3]  D. M.,et al.  Protocols for Determination of Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation; Approved Guidelines , 2004 .

[4]  Soma Das,et al.  Technical Standards and Guidelines: Molecular Genetic Testing for Ultra-Rare Disorders , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  Bertil Magnusson,et al.  Understanding the meaning of accuracy, trueness and precision , 2007 .

[6]  Robert Harper,et al.  Reporting of precision of estimates for diagnostic accuracy: a review , 1999, BMJ.

[7]  E. Prence.  A practical guide for the validation of genetic tests. , 1999, Genetic testing.

[8]  M. Pruvost,et al.  Minimizing DNA contamination by using UNG-coupled quantitative real-time PCR on degraded DNA samples: application to ancient DNA studies. , 2005, BioTechniques.

[9]  C. L. Rümke.  Uncertainty as to the acceptance or rejection of the presence of an effect in relation to the number of observations in an experiment. , 1968, Triangle; the Sandoz journal of medical science.

[10]  Rümke Cl.  Uncertainty as to the acceptance or rejection of the presence of an effect in relation to the number of observations in an experiment. , 1968 .

[11]  M. Gulley,et al.  Recommended principles and practices for validating clinical molecular pathology tests. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[12]  Darrell R. Abernethy,et al.  Making sense of trueness, precision, accuracy, and uncertainty , 2008 .

[13]  S. Carley,et al.  An introduction to power and sample size estimation , 2003, Emergency medicine journal : EMJ.

[14]  J. Hartley,et al.  Dealing with contamination: enzymatic control of carryover contamination in PCR. , 1993, PCR methods and applications.

[15]  E. Dequeker,et al.  Variability in the use of CE-marked assays for in vitro diagnostics of CFTR gene mutations in European genetic testing laboratories , 2009, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[16]  J. Witte,et al.  Comparison of missing data approaches in linkage analysis , 2003, BMC Genetics.

[17]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[18]  Lukas Wagner,et al.  A Greedy Algorithm for Aligning DNA Sequences , 2000, J. Comput. Biol..

[19]  J. Hartley,et al.  Use of uracil DNA glycosylase to control carry-over contamination in polymerase chain reactions. , 1990, Gene.

[20]  Mano Sivaganesan,et al.  A Bayesian method for calculating real-time quantitative PCR calibration curves using absolute plasmid DNA standards , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[21]  J A Hanley,et al.  If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. , 1983, JAMA.

[22]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. , 2003, Radiology.