Table 1.

Detection rates per lab based on two empirical rules and three statistical tests (CIP proficiency panel phases I–III)

LabID	# Expected responses	Detected based on empirical rule 1		Detected based on empirical rule 2		Detected based on t test		Detected based on DFR(eq) test		Detected based on DFR(2x) test
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Overall	282	165	59	210	74	214	76	212	75	172	61
1	21	13	62	17	81	16	76	17	81	13	62
2	21	12	57	13	62	13	62	11	52	8	38
3	21	11	52	17	81	17	81	17	81	14	67
4	21	13	62	15	71	14	67	11	52	10	48
5	21	5	24	5	24	8	38	8	38	4	19
6	14	9	64	9	64	12	86	12	86	9	64
7	21	14	67	18	86	19	90	19	90	16	76
8	21	10	48	14	67	17	81	16	76	13	62
9	21	16	76	21	100	20	95	20	95	18	86
10	8	6	75	6	75	6	75	6	75	6	75
11	21	11	52	15	71	16	76	16	76	14	67
12	14	7	50	11	79	8	57	9	64	8	57
13	15	9	60	14	93	13	87	13	87	10	67
15	7	4	57	7	100	7	100	7	100	6	86
16	7	5	71	5	71	5	71	6	86	4	57
19	7	7	100	7	100	7	100	7	100	7	100
21	7	4	57	7	100	5	71	6	86	5	71
23	7	5	71	5	71	6	86	6	86	3	43
24	7	4	57	4	57	5	71	5	71	4	57

The first line reports the overall results for the whole group. The following rows report the results for the 19 individual centers that participated in the three phases of the CIP proficiency panel program. The first column indicates the laboratory IDs, the second column indicates the number of positive donor-antigen combinations (=responses) that could have been detected under optimal conditions