62所实验室AFP项目在室间质评和室内质控比对的比较分析

Comparative study of the quality evaluation capacity between IQCC and EQA on AFP in 62 laboratories

目的比较62所实验室AFP项目在室间质评（EQA）和室内质控比对（IQCC）中评价结果的差异,分析2种外部质量评价方法的特点。方法平行开展AFP项目的 EQA和IQCC活动,将62所实验室按照室内质控品批号和检测系统品牌分为9个观测组,并按照不同观测时间,分别计算各组在EQA和IQCC中的各种统计量值和评价指标。结果62所实验室不精密度均〈7.01%。IQCC提示7个实验室可能存在质量异常;62所实验室EQA成绩均为100分。9个观测组全月CVday均值（3.93%-12.10%）高于CVEmax（1.56%-6.22%）。3个观测组的CVday整月高于其CVEmax,IQC5＆Roche组的单日最大值达到其CVEmax的4倍。结论 IQCC较EQA更能敏感地提示出质量异常实验室,2种评价活动相结合,可综合提高外部质量评价活动对区域内实验室的质量评价能力。

Objective To compare the difference on evaluation results between internal quality control comparisons （IQCC） and external quality assessment（EQA） in 62 laboratories. Summarize the characteristics of the two EQA methods. Methods The EQA and IQCC activities with AFP were carried out at the same time. 62 laboratories were divided into 9 observation groups according to the IQC lot numbers and detection Systems＇ brands. The statistical values and evaluation indicators of each observation group in both EQA and IQCC were calculated respectively. Results The un - precision of 62 laboratories were all less than 7.01%. IQCC suggested that 7 laboratories might have quality problems. 62 laboratories＇ EQA scores were all 100. The CVday means（3.93% to 12.1% ） of 9 observation groups were higher than their CVEmax （1. 56% to 6. 19% ） in the whole month. 3 observation groups＇ CVday were higher than their CVE the whole month. CVday reached its maximum 4 times of CVEmax in IQC5＆Roche group. Conclusion IQCC is more sensitive than EQA to indicate the abnormal quality of laboratories. The comhination of the two methods can improve the ability of external quality assessment activities to the laboratories in the area.