Outlier tests: forget it! [Bioanalytics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-01-19 18:36 (6004 d 14:07 ago) – Posting: # 4618
Views: 9,713

Dear Yuvraj!

Again: there’s no need for a formal outlier test. Reading the guidance you would have noticed that a QCs sample may be excluded, if:±15% are valid for simple methods; wider limits are possible for ligand binding assays. Wider limits are also valid at the LLOQ.
Consider a simple dataset (n=3; that’s the minimum to do statistics I would say…):
QC1  80% (suspected outlier; accuracy <85%)
QC2  95%
QC3 105%
x    98.3%
(acceptable: within 100±15%)
SD   12.6%
CV   13.5%
(acceptable: <15%)
Grubbs-test: 1.060<1.155, p≥0.05
Dixon-test: 0.6<0.941, p≥0.05
Henning-test: 13.33<37.75, no outlier
Robust: no outlier

Now what? You may exclude the value according to the guidance, but none of the tests would support that. Not even a “zero” result for QC1 would give you a significant result. BTW, you may exclude values, but you don’t have to. In the example most people wouldn’t do so, because both accuracy and precision are within limits.
Forget it.

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
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
389 visitors (0 registered, 389 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:44 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