Abstract:Abstract Background Chemistry panels play a crucial role in determining a person’s general health and well-being. These tests evaluate electrolyte balance and the status of several major organs. The Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) and Lipid Panel constitute approximately 87% of the blood tests prescribed in medical laboratories. Laboratories monitor assay performance by performing proficiency testing using quality controls (QC). College of American Pathologists (CAP) data is useful for laboratories to compare their proficiency testing performance to other laboratories and instrument systems. Sigma metrics serve as a valuable tool for laboratories to assess the quality and accuracy of their tests. Sigma scores vary from 0 to 6, with the 6 score designated as world-class performance, 5 as excellent, 4 as good, 3 as marginal, and 2 as poor. The analytical performance of 16 clinical assays from Abbott, Beckman, Roche, and Siemens instrument systems were compared using Sigma metrics. Methods Sigma metrics of 16 chemistry analytes were compared across 4 instruments system using CAP data from three reports (C-A 2023, C-C 2023 and C-B 2022). The 4 systems evaluated were Abbott Alinity ci, Beckman AU, Roche COBAS c500/c303 and Siemens Atellica CH. Method imprecision was estimated for each assay using the cumulative coefficient of variation or standard deviation for each assay at a single QC concentration and calculating the average sigma. Since sigma levels can be concentration-dependent, an equivalent CAP sample concentration was chosen for each instrument system evaluation. Method bias was estimated by evaluating each method QC mean to the peer group mean. Sigma values were calculated for each method as Sigma = (TEa - |Bias|) / Precision using the allowable total error from 2014 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) proposed acceptance limits. Average Sigma values were generated for each analyte and graded as an optimal Sigma score. Results The sigma scores varied across assays and instrument systems. Abbott demonstrated the best overall performance. Specifically, the Abbott Alinity system had the highest number (7/16, 44%) of assays at 5 sigma or higher, with Siemens showing the lowest number of assays at 5 Sigma or higher (1/16, 6%). Of the 16 assays evaluated, Abbott has the fewest assays at or below the 3 sigma threshold (5/16) when compared to Roche (7/16), Beckman (7/16), and Siemens (9/16). Sigma scores were comparable between the Abbott ARCHITCT and Alinity clinical chemistry systems. Conclusions Sigma metrics are useful in assessing the performance of clinical assays. Assays with high Sigma have better performance due to lower imprecision and higher accuracy. None of the instrument systems demonstrated optimal six sigma performance for all analytes. However, Abbott demonstrated the best overall performance.

Performance characteristics of automated clinical chemistry analyzers using commercial assay reagents contributing to quality assurance and clinical decision in a hospital laboratory

Performance Evaluation of the Sysmex CS-5100 Automated Coagulation Analyzer.

The Application Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support in Auto-verification and Interpretation of Laboratory Test Results

Analytical performance evaluation of a new integrated clinical chemistry and immunoassay analyzer

A-118 Sigma Metric Performance of Chemistry Assays on 4 Instrument Systems

Verification of examination procedures for 72 biochemical parameters on the atellica® clinical chemistry and immunoassay analyzers

Evaluation of the clinical chemistry tests analytical performance with Sigma Metric by using different quality specifications - Comparison of analyser actual performance with manufacturer data

Verifying measurements on Siemens Atellica® instruments using clinically acceptable analytical performance specifications

Comparison Of Test Results And Performances Of Hitachi 7600 And Beckman Olympus 5800 Automatic Biochemical Analyzers

Evaluation of an in-clinic dry chemistry analyzer for canine, equine, and feline plasma samples

Ensure the accuracy and consistency of biochemical analyzer test results: Chemometrics for instrument and inter-instrument item comparison in Chinese hospital laboratory

A-101 Is That Unexpected? Education on Handling Real World Complications with Tightly Controlled Analytes During Method Evaluation

A-034 Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Five Chemistry Assays on the Atellica CI Analyzer

A-078 Accuracy Based Sigma Metrics of Alinity C System As Benchmarked Against Roche C701

Comparison of Analytical Performances of Two Mindray 380 Auto Biochemistry Analyzers

B-020 Study of Method Intercomparison between Atellica Solution® and CI® Analyzers for T4L, β-HCG Total, and PSA Total

Ensuring Clinical Excellence: The Mindray SAL9000 Biochemical Immunoassay System

B-279 Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Two Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Assays on the Atellica CI Analyzer

A-029 Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Four Assays Used for Diabetes on the Atellica CI Analyzer

Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000

Sigma metrics application for validated and non‐validated detecting systems performance assessment