<scp>ASVCP</scp>guidelines: allowable total error guidelines for biochemistry

TLDR

Laboratory equipment degrades over time, requiring periodic performance assessment to ensure accurate results and comparability across instruments used in veterinary practice, and allowable total error (TEa) provides a simple quality metric for defining acceptable analytical performance. These guidelines recommend determining and interpreting TEa for commonly measured biochemical analytes in cats, dogs, and horses across veterinary diagnostic equipment, aiming to standardize performance criteria for both in‑clinic and reference laboratories. The TEa values are intended for use in instrument selection, quality control validation, and assessing agreement between different laboratories, such as between in‑clinic analyzers and reference labs. The guidelines establish the largest TEa values that do not compromise clinical decision making and provide a straightforward approach to evaluating instrument analytical performance.

Abstract

Abstract As all laboratory equipment ages and contains components that may degrade with time, initial and periodically scheduled performance assessment is required to verify accurate and precise results over the life of the instrument. As veterinary patients may present to general practitioners and then to referral hospitals (both of which may each perform in‐clinic laboratory analyses using different instruments), and given that general practitioners may send samples to reference laboratories, there is a need for comparability of results across instruments and methods. Allowable total error ( TE a ) is a simple comparative quality concept used to define acceptable analytical performance. These guidelines are recommendations for determination and interpretation of TE a for commonly measured biochemical analytes in cats, dogs, and horses for equipment commonly used in veterinary diagnostic medicine. TE a values recommended herein are aimed at all veterinary settings, both private in‐clinic laboratories using point‐of‐care analyzers and larger reference laboratories using more complex equipment. They represent the largest TE a possible without generating laboratory variation that would impact clinical decision making. TE a can be used for (1) assessment of an individual instrument's analytical performance, which is of benefit if one uses this information during instrument selection or assessment of in‐clinic instrument performance, (2) Quality Control validation, and (3) as a measure of agreement or comparability of results from different laboratories (eg, between the in‐clinic analyzer and the reference laboratory). These guidelines define a straightforward approach to assessment of instrument analytical performance.