• Sitemap
  • Contact us

pISSN 2950-9114 eISSN 2950-9122
Article View

Original Article

Lab Med Qual Assur 2022; 44(1): 48-54

Published online March 31, 2022


Copyright © Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service.

Application of Geometric Mean Criteria for Anti-Blood Group Antibody Proficiency Testing in the Korean External Quality Assurance Program

John Jeongseok Yang1 , Hee-Jeong Youk2 , Yousun Chung3 , Hyungsuk Kim4 , Sang-Hyun Hwang2 , Heung-Bum Oh2 , and Dae-Hyun Ko2

1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine; 2Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine; 3Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital; 4Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Dae-Hyun Ko
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel +82-2-3010-4504
E-mail daehyuni1118@amc.seoul.kr

Received: July 20, 2021; Revised: September 23, 2021; Accepted: September 24, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background: The geometric mean criteria (GC) is an alternative for assessing proficiency testing (PT) acceptability. A recent study applied GC to the PT results provided by the College of American Pathologists. We assessed the feasibility of using GC for anti-blood group antibody titration testing (ABT) in the Korean PT program.
Methods: The results of the ABT performed in 2019 were reviewed using GC. GC was calculated as geometric mean (GM)±multiples of geometric standard deviation (GSD). The number of acceptable results obtained using GC was compared to that of the conventional mode criteria (MC, mode±1 second). Only the results with 30 or more peer group responses were included in the analyses.
Results: A total of 27 PT results (anti-A: 13, anti-B: 14) were analyzed. The acceptable proportions from MC were 82.9%–100.0% for anti-A and 76.2%–100.0% for anti-B. The GC criteria yielded acceptable results of 46.9%–97.6% (1 GSD), 88.6%–100.0% (2 GSD), and 97.3%–100.0% (3 GSD) for anti-A. For anti-B, 1 GSD, 2 GSD, and 3 GSD criteria resulted in 44.7%–90.6%, 90.6%–100.0%, and 97.4%–100.0%, respectively. In general, acceptable results using MC were found to be distributed between 1 GSD and 2 GSD.
Conclusions: The GC can be used as an alternative assessment criterion with a more robust statistical rationale. While conventional MC struggles with representing the central tendency of data, GC provide better visualization of the central tendency.

Keywords: Laboratory proficiency testing, Geometric mean, Mode, Acceptability

Supplementary File

Share this article on :

Stats or metrics