Abstract

Abstract Measurement uncertainty is a parameter that is associated with the dispersion of measurements. Assessment of the measurement uncertainty is recommended in qualitative analyses in clinical laboratories; however, the measurement uncertainty of qualitative tests has been neglected despite the introduction of many adequate methods. We herein provide an overview of three reasonable statistical methods for quantifying the measurement uncertainties of qualitative assays, namely Bayes’ theorem, the normal distribution method, and the information theoretic approach. Unlike in quantitative analysis, the measurement uncertainty of qualitative analysis is expressed using a conditional probability, likelihood ratio, and entropy. With the necessary theoretical background, the practical applications for clinical laboratories are also provided using statistical calculations. Using statistical approaches, we hope that our review will contribute to the use of measurement uncertainty in qualitative analyses in the clinical laboratory environment.

Highlights

  • Measurement uncertainty is one of the most powerful tools for expressing the dispersion of measurement procedures in clinical laboratories [1,2,3]

  • The qualitative tests differ from the quantitative tests principally because there are no numerical results but dichotomous results

  • Various mathematical methods have been applied to the measurement uncertainty of qualitative analysis [14,15,16, 22], the concept of measurement uncertainty is not commonly used in qualitative measurement that laboratory tests provide

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Measurement uncertainty is one of the most powerful tools for expressing the dispersion of measurement procedures in clinical laboratories [1,2,3]. P(A | Pos) is the conditional probability of event A given that the test result is true (the probability of an actual HBV active carrier whose HBsAg test result is positive). Based on the aforementioned points, the measurement uncertainty of qualitative assay can be quantified because it is equal to the positive predictive value using the analytical performance of the assay and the disease prevalence [15] These data can be collected with previously published reports for technical specifications of assays. If the prevalence of patients referred to the test is known to be 0.01, the adjusted measurement uncertainty is P(Aadjusted | Pos) = 31.7% This posterior probability represents the likelihood of the patient being an actual HBV.

Negative likelihood
Verbal equivalent
Measurement uncertainty using the
Instrumental signal value
Chemiluminescence immunoassay
Extremely strong support
Measurement uncertainty using the information theoretic approach
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call