Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: revolution or evolution?
2016 (English)In: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, ISSN 1434-6621, E-ISSN 1437-4331, Vol. 54, no 2, 235-239 p.Article in journal (Refereed) PublishedText
The first strategic EFLM conference "Defining analytical performance goals, 15 years after the Stockholm Conference" was held in the autumn of 2014 in Milan. It maintained the Stockholm 1999 hierarchy of performance goals but rearranged them and established five task and finish groups to work on topics related to analytical performance goals including one on the "total error" theory. Jim Westgard recently wrote a comprehensive overview of performance goals and of the total error theory critical of the results and intentions of the Milan 2014 conference. The "total error" theory originated by Jim Westgard and co-workers has a dominating influence on the theory and practice of clinical chemistry but is not accepted in other fields of metrology. The generally accepted uncertainty theory, however, suffers from complex mathematics and conceived impracticability in clinical chemistry. The pros and cons of the total error theory need to be debated, making way for methods that can incorporate all relevant causes of uncertainty when making medical diagnoses and monitoring treatment effects. This development should preferably proceed not as a revolution but as an evolution.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH , 2016. Vol. 54, no 2, 235-239 p.
allowable total error; analytical performance goals; error; total analytical error; uncertainty
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-124454DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0997ISI: 000367814600016PubMedID: 26540227OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-124454DiVA: diva2:899856