Accuracy versus Inaccuracy [Bioanalytics]

posted by NewInPK – 2009-06-12 06:16 (6226 d 17:35 ago) – Posting: # 3849
Views: 5,304

Good evening HS,

Thank you very much for the link and for taking the time to reply.

I feel I am in very good company when it comes to interchanging these terms:

"For a method to be considered acceptable, it is recommended that both the interbatch imprecision (%CV) and the accuracy, expressed as absolute mean bias (%RE) be ± 20% (25% at LLOQ and ULOQ)."

Then the very next phrase:

"As an additional constraint to control method error, it is recommended that the target total error (sum of the absolute value of the %RE [accuracy] and precision [%CV] be less than ± 30% [ ± 40% at the LLOQ and ULOQ])."

I guess we accept easily that the accuracy of a measurement of 100 mL is ± 1 mL (also absolute error), but when it is relative and it becomes 1%, then it doesn't sound that reassuring, so there comes "inaccuracy" to help. I may have to use only "%RE" to avoid comments from the two camps.

Thanks again!

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
175 visitors (0 registered, 175 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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