...
首页> 外文期刊>Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems >Risk management for analytical methods based on the total error concept: Conciliating the objectives of the pre-study and in-study validation phases
【24h】

Risk management for analytical methods based on the total error concept: Conciliating the objectives of the pre-study and in-study validation phases

机译:基于总误差概念的分析方法的风险管理:协调研究前和研究中验证阶段的目标

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In industries that involve either chemistry or biology, analytical methods are necessary to keep an eye on all the material produced. If the quality of an analytical method is doubtful, then the whole set of decisions based on those measures is questionable. For this reason, being able to assess the quality of an analytical method is far more than a statistical challenge; it is a matter of ethics and good business practices. The validity of an analytical method must be assessed at two levels. The "pre-study" validation aims to show, by an appropriate set of designed experiments, that the method is able to achieve its objectives. The "in-study" validation is intended to verify, by inserting QC samples in routine runs, that the method remains valid over time. At these two levels, the total error approach considers a method as valid if a sufficient proportion of analytical results are expected to lie in a given interval around the (unknown) nominal value. This paper discusses two methods, based on this total error concept, of checking the validity of a measurement method at the pre-study level. The first checks whether a tolerance interval for hypothetical future measurements lies within given acceptance limits; the second calculates the probability of a result lying within these limits and computes whether it is greater than a given acceptance level. For the "in-study" validation, the paper assesses the properties of the s-n-lambda rule recommended by the FDA. The properties and respective advantages and limitations of these methods are investigated. A crucial point is to ensure that the decisions taken at the pre-study stage and in routine use are coherent. More precisely, a laboratory should not see its method rejected in routine use when it has been proved to be valid and remains so. This paper shows how this goal may be achieved by choosing compatible validation parameters at both pre- and in-study levels.
机译:在涉及化学或生物学的行业中,必须采用分析方法来关注所有产生的材料。如果分析方法的质量令人怀疑,则基于这些度量的整个决策集值得怀疑。因此,能够评估一种分析方法的质量远远超出了统计上的挑战。这是道德和良好商业惯例的问题。分析方法的有效性必须在两个层次上进行评估。 “预研究”验证旨在通过一组适当的设计实验表明该方法能够实现其目标。 “研究中”验证旨在通过在常规运行中插入QC样本来验证该方法随着时间的推移仍然有效。在这两个级别上,如果预期在(未知)标称值的给定间隔内有足够比例的分析结果,则总误差方法认为该方法有效。本文讨论了基于总误差概念的两种方法,可在预研究阶段检查一种测量方法的有效性。第一个检查假设的未来测量的公差区间是否在给定的接受极限内;第二步计算结果在这些限制内的可能性,并计算结果是否大于给定的接受水平。对于“研究中”验证,本文评估了FDA推荐的s-n-lambda规则的属性。研究了这些方法的性质以及各自的优点和局限性。至关重要的一点是要确保在预研究阶段和日常使用中做出的决定是一致的。更准确地说,当实验室证明其方法有效并仍然有效时,不应认为其方法在常规使用中遭到拒绝。本文说明了如何通过在研究前和研究中选择兼容的验证参数来实现此目标。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号