Problematic determination of serum growth hormone: Experience from external quality assurance surveys 1998-2003

The objective of the present study was to start a new external quality assurance survey (EQAS) for the determination of serum growth hormone (GH) using pooled serum specimens as quality-assurance samples. To give good coverage of multiple forms of GH, the specimens included sera from GH-deficient an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation 2005, Vol.65 (5), p.377-386
Hauptverfasser: Mörsky, P., Tiikkainen, U., Ruokonen, A., Markkanen, H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The objective of the present study was to start a new external quality assurance survey (EQAS) for the determination of serum growth hormone (GH) using pooled serum specimens as quality-assurance samples. To give good coverage of multiple forms of GH, the specimens included sera from GH-deficient and acromegalic patients as well as from persons showing a normal response in GH provocation tests. In one survey the quality-control specimens were spiked with exogenous 22-kD GH to obtain some idea of the specificity and GH recovery of the assays. The EQA surveys of 1998-2003 were organized by Labquality of Helsinki in cooperation with three university hospital laboratories in Finland. The number of participating laboratories ranged from 8 to 14. During 1998-2003, gratifying methodological harmonization occurred in the participating group, as the participants switched to the immunometric detection principle, the number of method applications decreasing from 7 to 3. In 1998 the 14 participating laboratories reported five different conversion factors (from µg l to mU l), whereas in 2003 7 of the 8 participants reported the same factor. Despite the harmonization trend among participating laboratories, further efforts are needed, because marked method-based differences still exist. This dialogue should include kit manufacturers, laboratory experts, EQA organizations and clinicians using the test results.
ISSN:0036-5513
1502-7686
DOI:10.1080/00365510510025791