Inaccuracy, precision acc. to IUPAC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2023-06-30 13:33 (745 d 20:23 ago) – Posting: # 23637
Views: 4,002

Hi Avinash,

not answering you question but a general comment. IMHO, the confusion in terminology (also in other bioanalytical guidelines) is probably caused by only a few analytical chemists (for ICH M10 just one?) involved.*

Accuracy is qualitative. We want that our result have small inaccuracy (which is quantitative). The ±15% (±20% at the LLOQ) ‘accuracy‘ stated in the guideline(s) is sloppy terminology. SCNR. I’m fine with 85–115% (80–120% at the LLOQ) of the true value or, if you prefer, ±15% (±20% at the LLOQ) inaccuracy. The term ‘non-accuracy’ is an invention of ICH.

The proper terms are unambiguously defined by the ‘International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry’ (founded 1919!) in its ‘Golden Book’:


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
23,436 posts in 4,932 threads, 1,677 registered users;
51 visitors (0 registered, 51 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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