Difference between revisions of "Visser 2006 Accred Qual Asur"
m (Iglesias-Gonzalez Javier moved page Visser 2006 Accred Qual Assur to Visser 2006 Accred Qual Asur) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | |editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Labeling | {{Labeling | ||
|additional= | |additional=QM | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:06, 12 March 2024
| Visser RG (2006) Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency. Accred Qual Asur 10:521-526. |
Visser RG (2006) Accred Qual Asur
Abstract: Guidelines are given for the evaluation of proficiency test (PT) results in order to increase the effectivity of PT participation. For better understanding, some statistical background is given along with some examples to show the effects of the choices made by the PT provider. The calculation method of the assigned value and the selection of the standard deviation both affect the z-score that is used by the participating laboratory to judge the quality of its performance in the PT. Therefore, the participating laboratory is advised to use the PT results with care and, if necessary, to recalculate the z-scores. Finally, advice is given on how not to follow up bad PT results along with some valuable steps that could be part of an effective follow-up procedure • Keywords: Proficiency test, Assigned value, Standard deviation, z-score, Root cause analysis, Corrective action, Effectivity • Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Labels:
QM
