Every year we like to update and review analytical performance standards. Some years are harder than others. Looking at the latest update of EuBIVAS is some interesting good news - bad news.
Have we reached a point where bias in analytical methods can be solved, transformed, and/or ignored? If anything, our biases in the lab - and in the rest of the world - seem to be getting bigger...
Another slew of MU has hit the journals. The MU-TE debate continues in publications and online postings. But there are some reasons for hope...
There are days I worry we are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a performance specification. Or that we're all blind men feeling different parts of a great elephant of error and uncertainty. But the latest "round" in the debate is depressingly familiar.
In January, we were fortunate to have a guest essay by one of the organizers of the EQA monitoring program, Empower IVD * Globe. More recently, an editorial in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine has endorsed this approach. As the Empower IVD project produces more studies and more significant findings, we add our strong encouragement.
