QCs vs. calibrators [Bioanalytics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-01-19 22:49 (6006 d 15:42 ago) – Posting: # 4622
Views: 9,551

Dear Ohlbe!

❝ ❝ Of course the value has to be reported and included in the calculation of acc./prec.


❝ Then we agree: you're not excluding it...


❝ Of course I agree that you can have up to 1/3 of your QCs failing.


OK.

❝ But that's not what I call exclusion. The failing results are there, and should be reported and included in the calculations, whether considered statistically to be outliers or not.


Again, an outlier test with n=2–3 is futile. IMHO such a test shouldn’t be used in any case. To be honest I don’t know of any analyst even trying one. Well, and results should be reported. But: In this post you wrote:

❝ You may exclude a standard sample, but I can't see how you could exclude a QC, unless you have an excellent and documented analytical reason to do it.

❝ […] Your QC result is an experimental result […]



Again, what’s your rationale of “excluding a standard sample” – calibrators and QCs are prepared in exactly the same way? Both are spiked samples of known concentrations. If you ask for an “excellent and documented analytical reason” to exclude a QC, why do you not require the same for standards? Or do you? To paraphrase your statement: Your calibrator is an experimental result […]

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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
237 visitors (0 registered, 237 guests [including 20 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:32 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Try to learn something about everything
and everything about something.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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