Copyright
©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Methodol. Nov 29, 2018; 8(3): 44-50
Published online Nov 29, 2018. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v8.i3.44
Published online Nov 29, 2018. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v8.i3.44
Analytes | Qc levels | Bias% | CV% | Sigma | QGI | Problem |
Glucose | Level 2 | 3.66 | 2.74 | 2.31 | 0.89 | Imprecision and inaccuracy |
Urea | Level 2 | -2.94 | 4.21 | 2.84 | 0.47 | Imprecision |
TC | Level 2 | 5.08 | 2.86 | 1.72 | 1.18 | Inaccuracy |
Level 3 | 5.08 | 2.66 | 1.85 | 1.27 | Inaccuracy | |
AST | Level 2 | 13.2 | 4.77 | 1.43 | 1.84 | Inaccuracy |
Level 3 | 13.2 | 3.11 | 2.19 | 2.83 | Inaccuracy | |
ALT | Level 2 | 12.7 | 4.75 | 1.54 | 1.78 | Inaccuracy |
Level 3 | 12.7 | 3.23 | 2.26 | 2.62 | Inaccuracy |
- Citation: Verma M, Dahiya K, Ghalaut VS, Dhupper V. Assessment of quality control system by sigma metrics and quality goal index ratio: A roadmap towards preparation for NABL. World J Methodol 2018; 8(3): 44-50
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v8/i3/44.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v8.i3.44