Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Clinical Chemistry, 6(56), p. 902-911, 2010

DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.140178

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Report of the IFCC working group for standardization of thyroid function tests: part 1: thyroid-stimulating hormone

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing of serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is an essential tool for the diagnosis and management of various thyroid disorders whose collective prevalence lies between 4% and 8%. However, between-assay discrepancies in TSH results limit the application of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We performed a method comparison study with 40 sera to assess the result comparability and performance attributes of 16 immunoassays. RESULTS: Thirteen of 16 assays gave mean results within 10% of the overall mean. The difference between the most extreme means was 39%. Assay-specific biases could be eliminated by recalibration to the overall mean. After recalibration of singlicate results, all assays showed results within the biological total error goal (22.8%), except for 1 result in each of 4 assays. For a sample with a TSH concentration of 0.016 mIU/L, 6 assays either did not report results or demonstrated CVs >20%. Within-run and total imprecision ranged from 1.5% to 5.5% and 2.5% to 7.7%, respectively. Most assays were able to match the internal QC targets within 5%. Within-run drifts and shifts were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization of TSH measurements would be particularly beneficial for 3 of the 16 examined assays. These data demonstrate that harmonization may be accomplished by establishing calibration traceability to the overall mean values for a panel of patient samples. However, the full impact of the approach must be further explored with a wider range of samples. Although a majority of assays showed excellent quality of performance, some would benefit from improved within-run stability. (C) 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry