Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 97–102 | Cite as

Trueness verification survey for blood lead concentration measurement in Chinese clinical laboratories

  • Shuai Yuan
  • Wei Wang
  • Jianping Li
  • Mingxia Liu
  • Junwei Xin
  • Fa L. He
  • Kun Zhong
  • Zhi G. Wang
Practitioner's Report


The results of trueness verification for blood lead measurement were analyzed in a 2016 nationwide external quality assessment (EQA) survey, in order to evaluate current approaches of blood lead measurement in Chinese Laboratories and their traceability to certified reference materials (CRMs). A panel of 2 frozen whole blood CRMs with values assigned by an absolute quantitative method was provided to 12 laboratories with satisfactory performances from the 2015 blood lead EQA scheme. Participants were required to measure the samples 5 times each day for 3 consecutive days and report all 15 data, which were then calculated for means and standard deviations. Data were statistically analyzed by adopted method groups, before comparing with the assigned values to assess the trueness of blood lead measurement using different approaches. Eleven laboratories reported on schedule, rendering a reporting rate of 91.7 %. The target values for the two batches were (37.6 ± 2.7) μg/L and (124.6 ± 4.5) μg/L, respectively. By the evaluation criterion of target value ± 20 µg/L, the pass rates were 72.7 % for the lower concentration and 54.5 % for the higher concentration, while 5 out of 11 laboratories delivered satisfactory results for both CRMs. The overall performance of the few participating laboratories in this EQA survey was basically acceptable by CLSI standard on the whole, yet barely desirable for the higher concentration. Therefore, trueness verification of blood lead measurement with CRMs is potentially necessary for national EQA schemes, which can be imperative as part of the validation procedures of analytical methods in clinical settings.


Blood lead Trueness verification Certified reference material Traceability 


  1. 1.
    Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C (2000) Cognitive deficits associated with blood lead concentrations < 10 μg/dL in US children and adolescents. Public Health Rep 115(6):521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patriarca M, Castelli M, Corsetti F, Menditto A (2004) Estimate of uncertainty of measurement from a single-laboratory validation study: application to the determination of lead in blood. Clin Chem 50(8):1396–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization (2010) Exposure to lead: a major public health concern. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yiqun W, Xiaoming S, Fengsheng H (2002) Urgent need for prevention and treatment of children lead poisoning. Chin J Epidemiol 23(3):161Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thienpont LM, Stöckl D, Friedecký B, Kratochvíla J, Budina M (2003) Trueness verification in European external quality assessment schemes: time to care about the quality of the samples. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 63(3):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 17511:2003 In vitro diagnostic medical devices—measurement of quantities in biological samples—metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators and control materials. International Organization of Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fengfeng K, Wei W, Chuanbao Z, Zhiguo W (2013) Establishment of an assigned value and its uncertainty for tumour markers in proficiency testing in China. Accred Qual Assur 5(18):435–439Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2013) C40-A2: measurement procedures for the determination of lead concentrations in blood and urine, 2nd edn. CLSI, WayneGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chinese Ministry of Health (1994) JJG1006-1994: Technical Norm of Primary Reference MaterialGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). International Organization of Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2014) EP15-A3: user verification of precision and estimation of bias; Approved guideline, 3rd edn. CLSI, WayneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chinese Ministry of Health (1996) WS/T 20-1996: Determination of blood lead—graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometric methodGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chinese Ministry of Health (2013) WS/T 443-2013: determination of blood lead and cadmium—Tungsten boat atomic absorption spectrometric methodGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chinese Ministry of Health (2006) Technical norm of blood lead measurement in clinical laboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wenxiang C, Ziyu S, Zhenhua Y (2007) Reference methods and measurement principles in clinical biochemistry. Chin J Lab Med 30(3):245–248Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linsinger T (2010) Comparison of a measurement result with the certified value. ERM application note 1.
  17. 17.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (1992) Medicare, medicaid and the CLIA programs; regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 (CLIA). Final rule. Federal Register Feburary 28, 57(40):7002–7186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuai Yuan
    • 1
  • Wei Wang
    • 1
  • Jianping Li
    • 2
  • Mingxia Liu
    • 3
  • Junwei Xin
    • 4
  • Fa L. He
    • 1
  • Kun Zhong
    • 1
  • Zhi G. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Clinical LaboratoriesBeijing HospitalBeijingChina
  2. 2.Xi’an Central HospitalShanxiChina
  3. 3.Suzhou Bacme Biotech Co., LtdJiangsuChina
  4. 4.Wuxi Shenrui Biopharmaceutical Co., LtdJiangsuChina

Personalised recommendations