126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2607322)
1. Performance profiles: new tools for characterization and comparison of clinical chemical results.
Keller H; Passing H
J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1989 Sep; 27(9):613-29. PubMed ID: 2607322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A new look at the limits of detection (LD), quantification (LQ) and power of definition (PD).
Gautschi K; Keller B; Keller H; Pei P; Vonderschmitt DJ
Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1993 Jul; 31(7):433-40. PubMed ID: 8399783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of a field method with reference method by use of difference plots.
Petersen PH; Stöckl D; Blaabjerg O; Pedersen B; Birkemose E; Thienpont L; Lassen JF; Kjeldsen J
Clin Chem; 1997 Nov; 43(11):2039-46. PubMed ID: 9365386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A multicentre evaluation of the Ektachem DT60-, Reflotron- and Seralyzer III systems.
Römer M; Haeckel R; Henco A; Vogt M; Thomas L; Keller HE; Appel W
Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1992 Sep; 30(9):547-83. PubMed ID: 1457619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Analytical uncertainty--how wrong can a laboratory result be?].
Bolann BJ; Stølsnes B
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1999 Dec; 119(30):4472-5. PubMed ID: 10827487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. External quality assessment of serum hormone determinations in the Nordic countries.
Ruokonen A; Leskinen E; Nyberg A; Vihko R
Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl; 1984; 172():125-34. PubMed ID: 6599513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measurement repeatability profiles of eight frequently requested measurands in clinical chemistry determined by duplicate measurements of patient samples.
Kallner A; Petersmann A; Nauck M; Theodorsson E
Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2020 May; 80(3):202-209. PubMed ID: 31971449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Matrix effects and accuracy assessment. Identifying matrix-sensitive methods from real-time proficiency testing data.
Lawson NS; Williams TL; Long T
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1993 Apr; 117(4):401-11. PubMed ID: 8466404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. "Delfia" and "Amerlite": two sensitive nonisotopic immunoassay systems for assay of thyrotropin compared.
Parnham AJ; Tarbit IF
Clin Chem; 1987 Aug; 33(8):1421-4. PubMed ID: 3608160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Moving standard deviation and moving sum of outliers as quality tools for monitoring analytical precision.
Liu J; Tan CH; Badrick T; Loh TP
Clin Biochem; 2018 Feb; 52():112-116. PubMed ID: 29107011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Objective determination of appropriate reporting intervals.
Badrick T; Wilson SR; Dimeski G; Hickman PE
Ann Clin Biochem; 2004 Sep; 41(Pt 5):385-90. PubMed ID: 15333190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluating test methods by estimating total error.
Chinchilli VM; Miller WG
Clin Chem; 1994 Mar; 40(3):464-71. PubMed ID: 8131284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of creatinine in serum, and a correlation of the results with those of the Jaffé and enzymic methods.
Schneiderka P; Pacáková V; Stulík K; Kloudová M; Jelínková K
J Chromatogr; 1993 May; 614(2):221-6. PubMed ID: 8314933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Uncertainty of measurement for 14 immunoassay analytes: application to laboratory result interpretation.
Çubukçu HC; Yavuz Ö; Devrim E
Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2019; 79(1-2):117-122. PubMed ID: 30626224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Analytical goals for accuracy and precision of plasma creatinine determinations evaluated by reference method measurements.
Linnet K
Ups J Med Sci; 1993; 98(3):349-54. PubMed ID: 7974865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Post-standardization of routine creatinine assays: are they suitable for clinical applications.
Jassam N; Weykamp C; Thomas A; Secchiero S; Sciacovelli L; Plebani M; Thelen M; Cobbaert C; Perich C; Ricós C; Paula FA; Barth JH
Ann Clin Biochem; 2017 May; 54(3):386-394. PubMed ID: 27496794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimation of the uncertainty of analyte concentration from the measurement uncertainty.
Brown S; Cooke DG; Blackwell LF
Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2015 Sep; 75(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 25960201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Critical difference calculations revised: inclusion of variation in standard deviation with analyte concentration.
Jones GR
Ann Clin Biochem; 2009 Nov; 46(Pt 6):517-9. PubMed ID: 19837723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The concept of establishing vs verifying analytic claims in method evaluations.
Hartmann AE
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1992 Jul; 116(7):714-7. PubMed ID: 1497443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An evaluation of six solid-phase thyrotropin (TSH) kits.
Wood WG; Waller D; Hantke U
J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1985 Aug; 23(8):461-71. PubMed ID: 4056662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
