Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Analysis of a 6-year pilot external quality assurance survey of free light chain using Sigma metrics

  • Hyojin Chae
  • , Jaeeun Yoo
  • , Joonhong Park
  • , Kyoungho Cha
  • , Jeong Joong Lee
  • , Bongrae Cho
  • , Myungshin Kim*
  • , Yonggoo Kim*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • The Catholic University of Korea

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: A pilot external quality assurance (EQA) survey for the free light chain (FLC) assay was developed and implemented in Korea. Methods: Survey data over 6 years (2010–2015) were collected retrospectively and Sigma metrics were calculated for method-specific peer groups. Results: Nineteen to 29 laboratories participated in the EQA survey, and nephelometric (20%) and turbidimetric (80%) methods were used. Using a previously published clinically relevant reference change value (RCV) of 54.5% as the tolerance limit, the method-specific median Sigma metrics of kappa (κ) and lambda (λ) FLC achieved greater than Three-Sigma for 86–97% of all EQA distributions, and Five-Sigma for 48–72% of all distributions. Conclusions: This EQA analysis of FLC assay applied clinically relevant quality specifications using Sigma metrics. During the 6-year EQA survey, we found that most of the results from participating laboratories meet clinically relevant quality specifications. In addition, method-specific differences were noted for λ FLC, at FLC concentrations above the initial measuring range that require a sample dilution.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)235-242
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Laboratory Medicine
Volume43
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2019

Keywords

  • external quality assurance
  • free light chain
  • Sigma metric
  • Sigma Proficiency Assessment Chart

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Analysis of a 6-year pilot external quality assurance survey of free light chain using Sigma metrics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this