↓ Skip to main content

How to assess the quality of your analytical method?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to assess the quality of your analytical method?
Published in
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1515/cclm-2015-0869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeta Topic, Nora Nikolac, Mauro Panteghini, Elvar Theodorsson, Gian Luca Salvagno, Marijana Miler, Ana-Maria Simundic, Ilenia Infusino, Gunnar Nordin, Sten Westgard

Abstract

Laboratory medicine is amongst the fastest growing fields in medicine, crucial in diagnosis, support of prevention and in the monitoring of disease for individual patients and for the evaluation of treatment for populations of patients. Therefore, high quality and safety in laboratory testing has a prominent role in high-quality healthcare. Applied knowledge and competencies of professionals in laboratory medicine increases the clinical value of laboratory results by decreasing laboratory errors, increasing appropriate utilization of tests, and increasing cost effectiveness. This collective paper provides insights into how to validate the laboratory assays and assess the quality of methods. It is a synopsis of the lectures at the 15th European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Continuing Postgraduate Course in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine entitled "How to assess the quality of your method?" (Zagreb, Croatia, 24-25 October 2015). The leading topics to be discussed include who, what and when to do in validation/verification of methods, verification of imprecision and bias, verification of reference intervals, verification of qualitative test procedures, verification of blood collection systems, comparability of results among methods and analytical systems, limit of detection, limit of quantification and limit of decision, how to assess the measurement uncertainty, the optimal use of Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assessment data, Six Sigma metrics, performance specifications, as well as biological variation. This article, which continues the annual tradition of collective papers from the EFLM continuing postgraduate courses in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, aims to provide further contributions by discussing the quality of laboratory methods and measurements and, at the same time, to offer continuing professional development to the attendees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 126 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 19%
Engineering 12 9%
Chemistry 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 34 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#1,107
of 2,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,183
of 286,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#17
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,903 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.