Verifying performance characteristics of quantitative analytical systems: calibration verification, linearity, and analytical measurement range.

CONTEXT Both the regulations in the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and the checklists of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Laboratory Accreditation Program require clinical laboratories to verify performance characteristics of quantitative test systems. Laboratories must verify performance claims when introducing an unmodified, US Food and Drug Administration-cleared or approved test system, and they must comply with requirements for periodic calibration and calibration verification for existing test systems. They must also periodically verify the analytical measurement range of many quantitative test systems. OBJECTIVE To provide definitions for many of the terms used in these regulations, to describe a set of basic analyses that laboratories may adapt to demonstrate compliance with both CLIA and the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program checklists for performing calibration verification and for verifying the analytical measurement range of test systems, to review some of the recommended procedures for establishing performance goals, and to provide data illustrating the performance goals used in some of the CAP's calibration verification and linearity surveys. DATA SOURCES The CAP's calibration verification and linearity survey programs, the CLIA regulations, the Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements, and published literature were used to meet these objectives. CONCLUSIONS Calibration verification and linearity and analytical measurement range verification should be performed using suitable materials with assessment of results using well-defined evaluation protocols. We describe the CAP's calibration verification and linearity programs that may be used for these purposes.

[1]  Chung-Che Chang,et al.  Evaluation of linearity in the clinical laboratory. , 2004, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  K. Emancipator,et al.  A theoretical evaluation of linearity. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  J O Westgard,et al.  Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. , 1974, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  J O Westgard,et al.  Selection of measurement and control procedures to satisfy the Health Care Financing Administration requirements and provide cost-effective operation. , 1992, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  J. Praestgaard,et al.  Evaluation of the extent of nonlinearity in reportable range studies. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  C G Fraser,et al.  General strategies to set quality specifications for reliability performance characteristics. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[7]  C G Fraser,et al.  Introduction: strategies to set global quality specifications in laboratory medicine. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[8]  Janice Gill,et al.  Implementing the Stockholm Conference hierarchy of objective quality criteria in a routine laboratory , 2007, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[9]  Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA programs; laboratory requirements relating to quality systems and certain personnel qualifications. Final rule. , 2003, Federal register.

[10]  K. Emancipator,et al.  A quantitative measure of nonlinearity. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  Carrie Coover,et al.  Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) , 2015 .