Author:
Farrance Ian,Badrick Tony,Frenkel Robert
Abstract
Abstract
The debate comparing the benefits of measurement uncertainty (uncertainty in measurement, MU) with total error (TE) for the assessment of laboratory performance continues. The summary recently provided in this journal by members of the Task and Finish Group on Total Error (TFG-TE) of the EFLM put the arguments into clear perspective. Even though there is generally strong support for TE in many laboratories, some of the arguments proposed for its on-going support require further comment. In a recent opinion which focused directly on the TFG-TE summary, several potentially confusing statements regarding ISO15189 and the Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) were again promulgated to promote TE methods for assessing uncertainty in laboratory measurement. In this opinion, we present an alternative view of the key issues and outline our views with regard to the relationship between ISO15189, uncertainty in measurement and the GUM.
Subject
Biochemistry, medical,Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine
Reference34 articles.
1. Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories.;Nordtest technical report TR537,2017
2. Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing – a laboratory implementation guide;Clin Biochem Rev,2004
3. Error methods are more practical, but uncertainty methods may still be preferred;Clin Chem,2018
4. Uncertainty in measurement and total error – are they so incompatible?;Clin Chem Lab Med,2016
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献