scholarly journals External Quality Assessments of CD31 Immunoassays – the NordiQC experience

Vascular Cell ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mogens Vyberg ◽  
Søren Nielsen ◽  
Michael Bzorek ◽  
Rasmus Røge
2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 2662-2666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Deplano ◽  
Magali Dodémont ◽  
Olivier Denis ◽  
Henrik Westh ◽  
Heidi Gumpert ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Descamps ◽  
Constance Delaugerre ◽  
Bernard Masquelier ◽  
Annick Ruffault ◽  
Anne-Geneviève Marcelin ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1207-1211
Author(s):  
Per Hyltoft Petersen ◽  
N. A. Klitgaard ◽  
O. Blaabjerg

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 4381-4384 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Both ◽  
S. Neal ◽  
A. De Zoysa ◽  
G. Mann ◽  
I. Czumbel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrew N. Cohen ◽  
Bruce Kessel

AbstractBackgroundLarge-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is a key element of the response to COVID-19, but little attention has been paid to the potential frequency and impacts of false positives.MethodsFrom a meta-analysis of external quality assessments of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses, we derived a conservative estimate of the range of false positive rates that can reasonably be expected in SARS-CoV-2 testing, and analyzed the effect of such rates on analyses of regional test data and estimates of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.FindingsReview of external quality assessments revealed false positive rates of 0-16.7%, with an interquartile range of 0.8-4.0%. Such rates would have large impacts on test data when prevalence is low. Inclusion of such rates significantly alters four published analyses of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.InterpretationThe high false discovery rate that results, when prevalence is low, from false positive rates typical of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses raises questions about the usefulness of mass testing; and indicates that across a broad range of likely prevalences, positive test results are more likely to be wrong than are negative results, contrary to public health advice about SARS-CoV-2 testing. There are myriad clinical and case management implications. Failure to appreciate the potential frequency of false positives and the consequent unreliability of positive test results across a range of scenarios could unnecessarily remove critical workers from service, expose uninfected individuals to greater risk of infection, delay or impede appropriate medical treatment, lead to inappropriate treatment, degrade patient care, waste personal protective equipment, waste human resources in unnecessary contact tracing, hinder the development of clinical improvements, and weaken clinical trials. Measures to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects should be considered.


1994 ◽  
Vol 72 (03) ◽  
pp. 426-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Kitchen ◽  
I D Walker ◽  
T A L Woods ◽  
F E Preston

SummaryWhen the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is used for control of oral anticoagulant therapy the same result should be obtained irrespective of the laboratory reagent used. However, in the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) for Blood Coagulation INRs determined using different reagents have been significantly different.For 18 NEQAS samples Manchester Reagent (MR) was associated with significantly lower INRs than those obtained using Diagen Activated (DA, p = 0.0004) or Instrumentation Laboratory PT-Fib HS (IL, p = 0.0001). Mean INRs for this group were 3.15, 3.61, and 3.65 for MR, DA, and IL respectively. For 61 fresh samples from warfarin-ised patients with INRs of greater than 3.0 the relationship between thromboplastins in respect of INR was similar to that observed for NEQAS data. Thus INRs obtained with MR were significantly lower than with DA or IL (p <0.0001). Mean INRs for this group were 4.01, 4.40, and 4.59 for MR, DA, and IL respectively.We conclude that the differences between INRs measured with the thromboplastins studied here are sufficiently great to influence patient management through warfarin dosage schedules, particularly in the upper therapeutic range of INR. There is clearly a need to address the issues responsible for the observed discrepancies.


Author(s):  
Himanshi Vashisht ◽  
Sanjay Bharadwaj ◽  
Sushma Sharma

Code refactoring is a “Process of restructuring an existing source code.”. It also helps in improving the internal structure of the code without really affecting its external behaviour”. It changes a source code in such a way that it does not alter the external behaviour yet still it improves its internal structure. It is a way to clean up code that minimizes the chances of introducing bugs. Refactoring is a change made to the internal structure of a software component to make it easier to understand and cheaper to modify, without changing the observable behaviour of that software component. Bad smells indicate that there is something wrong in the code that have to refactor. There are different tools that are available to identify and emove these bad smells. A software has two types of quality attributes- Internal and external. In this paper we will study the effect of clone refactoring on software quality attributes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document