Would any List members monitoring Patient Means (say weekly) for key tests like to share their criteria / method and experiences? Particularly interested if excluding data sources (e.g. in patients) and how outlier data points are selected for exclusion.
We have found Patient Means useful evidence in the past useful when seeking to persuade a manufacturer their calcium calibration was flawed. Other examples of usefulness include the ability to evidence 2 laboratories produce the "same" results (UKAS).
However, there is not a lot of evidence in literature on the application of this dated statistical technique and even less on it's adoption into modern QC procedures. What do Mailbase members think?
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
Green Laboratories Work
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)