Abstract
Background: Laboratories have a responsibility to produce accurate and reliable results to ensure patient safety and meet quality standards. Within the Six Sigma quality management framework, different approaches may emerge depending on the total allowable error (TEa) limits defined by various standards. This study aimed to compare analyte sigma levels using CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 criteria, determine appropriate quality control procedures based on Westgard multirules, and identify potential sources of error using the Quality Goal Index.
Methods: Sigma values for 17 biochemical analytes were calculated based on internal and external quality control data using the formula (TEa – bias)/CV. The Quality Goal Index (QGI) was determined using the formula bias/(1.5×CV). All analytes were evaluated at the Karabuk Public Health Laboratory between November 2024 and March 2025.
Results: Amylase (Levels 1 and 2), total bilirubin (Level 1), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Levels 1 and 2), creatine kinase (Levels 1 and 2), and lactate dehydrogenase (Levels 1 and 2) demonstrated world-class sigma performance according to both CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 standards. However, a decline in sigma values was observed when calculated using the more stringent CLIA 2024 limits.
Conclusions: The comparison of CLIA 1988 and CLIA 2024 standards demonstrated that stricter TEa limits can significantly impact sigma performance. While some analytes retained world-class performance, others showed a notable decline, requiring enhanced quality control measures. These findings emphasize the need for laboratories to periodically reassess test performance in light of evolving regulatory standards to ensure continued analytical reliability and patient safety.
Keywords
References
The published articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). It is allowed to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and remix, transform, and build upon it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original author(s), a link to the license is provided and it is indicated if changes were made. Users are required to provide full bibliographic description of the original publication (authors, article title, journal title, volume, issue, pages), as well as its DOI code. In electronic publishing, users are also required to link the content with both the original article published in Journal of Medical Biochemistry and the licence used.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.