Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 May;39(2):51-60.

Lot-to-Lot Variation

Affiliations
Review

Lot-to-Lot Variation

Simon Thompson et al. Clin Biochem Rev. 2018 May.

Abstract

Lot-to-lot variation affecting calibrators and reagents is a frequent challenge that limits the laboratory's ability to produce consistent results over time. This variation is not without clinical consequence and there are several well-documented examples of adverse clinical outcomes. It is important that laboratories have procedures in place for quantification of this inaccuracy, and for determining whether the amount of variation is acceptable for the release of patient results. Various approaches have been taken to the assessment of new lots, including the evaluation protocol published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Internal quality control and external quality assurance material is often not commutable, and so the use of native patient samples is preferred. Published evaluation protocols differ significantly in ease of use and statistical rigour, and some may be underpowered to detect a clinically meaningful change between lots. Furthermore, current protocols (including the CLSI protocol) will not detect cumulative shifts between reagent lots. This shortcoming may at least partly be addressed by laboratories adopting moving patient averages or similar quality procedures. Collaboration and data-sharing between laboratories and manufacturers also has an important role to play in the detection of lot-to-lot variation. While the laboratory may take steps to evaluate and detect variation, the ideal is to reduce variation between lots at the point of manufacture. Using appropriate acceptance criteria based on medical need or biological variation requirements instead of some arbitrary percentage may go some steps toward achieving this.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The stages of a LTLV evaluation process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of acceptance criteria used in LTLV evaluation protocols.
Figure 3
Figure 3
CLSI procedure for the evaluation of new reagent lots.

References

    1. Hölzel W. Analytical variation in immunoassays and its importance for medical decision making. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 1991;205:113–9. - PubMed
    1. Kim HS, Kang HJ, Whang DH, Lee SG, Park MJ, Park JY, et al. Analysis of reagent lot-to-lot comparability tests in five immunoassay items. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2012;42:165–73. - PubMed
    1. Thaler MA, Iakoubov R, Bietenbeck A, Luppa PB. Clinically relevant lot-to-lot reagent difference in a commercial immunoturbidimetric assay for glycated hemoglobin A1c. Clin Biochem. 2015;48:1167–70. - PubMed
    1. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:833–5. - PubMed
    1. Algeciras-Schimnich A, Bruns DE, Boyd JC, Bryant SC, La Fortune KA, Grebe SK. Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions. Clin Chem. 2013;59:1187–94. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources