Evaluation of imprecision in the different detection methods of Zn based on 5 years of data from an external quality assessment program in China

Abstract

BackgroundThis study examines the imprecision of zinc (Zn) measurements across various clinical detection methods by analyzing the external quality assessment (EQA) data from 2018 to 2022. The findings of this study aim to offer recommendations for enhancing Zn measurements. MethodsParticipating laboratories were grouped into peer categories based on the detection methods. The robust mean and coefficient of variation (CV) of the samples were calculated following ISO 13528 guidelines. The evaluation criteria for optimal, desirable, and minimum allowable imprecision in Zn estimation are2.50%, 5.05%, and 7.55%, respectively, based on biological variation. Furthermore, the study examined inter-lab CVs, inter-method bias, and the passing rate. The impact of sample concentration on CVs and the pass rate was also investigated. ResultsOver the past five years, 4,283 laboratories participated in the EQA program, showing a high pass rate that improved as sample concentration increased. Differential pulse polarography (DPP) demonstrated stable and low CVs (0.61–1.86%). Although differential pulse stripping (DPS) was less stable than DPP, it still exhibited a low CV (0.71–3.10%). Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS) and flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) performed similarly and displayed stable CVs (2.39–4.42%) within the acceptable range of desirable imprecision (5.05%). However, the CVs for ICP-MS were unacceptable in three out of the five years (5.28–6.20%). In 2022, the number of participating laboratories for DDP, DPS, GFAAS, FAAS and ICP-MS is 131, 35, 35, 820 and 72, respectively. ConclusionThis study provides reliable insights into the imprecision of Zn measurements in clinical laboratories. The findings indicate that additional efforts are required to reduce the imprecision of ICP-MS in Zn measurements.