Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 20.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Chim Acta. 2017 Mar 10;469:31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2017.03.010

Table 3.

Proficiency Evaluation of participant laboratories’ resultsc.

Assay Manufacturer Analytical System ne Laboratory (%) results within allowable limitsa for Sample A–D Laboratories achieved satisfactory performanceb (%)

Sample A (15.5 ng/dl) Sample B (30.0 ng/dl) Sample C (402 ng/dl) Sample D (498 ng/dl)
Beckman Coulter
 Access 2 6 0 83 100 100 83
 Unicel DxI 600 2 0 50 100 100 50
 Unicel DxI 800 10 10 90 100 100 90
Siemens
 ADVIA Centaur (XP, XPT) 36 42 50 89 97 56
 ADVIA Centaur CP 3 33 66 100 66 33
 Immulite 1000 3d 66 66 66 0 33
 Immulite 2000 XPi 19d 100 79 58 68 68
 Coat-A-Count 3 100 100 100 100 100
Ortho Clinical Diagnostics
 VITROS ECiQ 2 50 50 0 100 50
 VITROS 5600 1 0 100 100 0 0
Roche Diagnostics
 Cobas e401,e601,e602 5 80 60 100 100 100
 MODULAR series 9 78 89 100 100 100
 Elecsys 7 100 71 100 100 100
LC-MS/MS 4 50 100 100 100 100
Abbott AxSYM 3 0 33 100 100 33
Tosoh Bioscience AIA 1 0 100 100 0 0
MP Biomedicals 1 0 100 100 100 100
Overall performance 115 55 71 86 89 73
a

Results were within the limits of RMP-defined target ±25.1%.

b

Satisfactory performance of a laboratory is defined as laboratory’s results within the allowable limit for ≥3 of the 4 specimens.

c

Only the laboratories that submitted results for all 4 samples were evaluated.

d

Laboratories reported results as <20 and received a pass credit of 100%.

e

n = number of participating laboratories.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure