IS carry-over? [Bioanalytics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-11-21 17:45 (3838 d 11:08 ago) – Posting: # 13909
Views: 14,523

Merhaba Emrah!

❝ It is reported as "Fault in the sample processing".


OK, but how can you know that? Was anything documented in the lab journal like “I’m not sure whether I added the IS to this sample”? Can you give us:

❝ ❝ Conc: 418.78

❝ ❝ Re-analysis 1: 8.76

❝ ❝ Re-analysis 2: 7.24

❝ ❝ Means of Reanalyses : 8.00

❝ ❝ Reported Conc: NR


NR because “duplicate repeats were more than 20 percent different from one another”. That’s a matter of perspective:

Re-analysis 1: 8.76 (+21.0% of 7.24, –9.5% of x)
Re-analysis 2: 7.24 (–19.9% of 8.76, +9.5% of x)

Obviously the decision to not report the value was based on the first replicate – why not on the second? Looks like an ambiguity in the SOP. :cherry picking:
If ever possible (i.e., suf­fi­cient sample) run triplicates and use the median for assess­ment.

In which country do you want to submit the study? Bad luck for the EU and seemingly for Turkey as well.
However, I would explore potential impact of IS carry-over. Inject a sample spiked to a similar concentration like the sample in the batch before the doubtful value followed by a spiked sample without IS.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
23 visitors (0 registered, 23 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:53 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Far better an approximate answer to the right question,
which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question,
which can always be made precise.    John W. Tukey

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5