• Sitemap
  • Contact us

pISSN 2950-9114 eISSN 2950-9122
Article View

Original Article

Lab Med Qual Assur 2022; 44(4): 199-203

Published online December 31, 2022


Copyright © Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service.

Accuracy of Creatinine Assay According to Expanded Proficiency Testing in Participants

Tae-Dong Jeong

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Tae-Dong Jeong
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, 260 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07804, Korea
Tel +82-2-6986-3386
E-mail tdjeong@ewha.ac.kr

Received: June 15, 2022; Revised: July 1, 2022; Accepted: July 1, 2022

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: In 2020, the accuracy-based creatinine assay (ABCr) proficiency testing (PT) survey was transitioned from an optional to a mandatory program of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service (KEQAS). This study was conducted to analyze the creatinine assay bias according to the time of ABCr PT participation.
Methods: Raw data from the ABCr PT survey conducted from 2020 (1st and 2nd round) to 2021 (1st round) by the KEQAS were used. The participating laboratories were divided into two groups (before 2019 vs. after 2020). The after 2020 group refers to the laboratory participating in ABCr PT for the first time since 2020. The creatinine assay bias between the two groups was compared for each PT round. The acceptable rate between the two groups was compared.
Results: The mean absolute percentage bias of the before 2019 group was significantly smaller than that in the after 2020 group as follows: 1st round in 2020, 3.8% vs. 5.2%, P<0.001; 2nd round in 2020, 3.3% vs. 4.8%, P<0.001; 1st round in 2021, 4.1% vs. 7.4%, P<0.001. The acceptable rates in the before and after 2019 groups were 91.9%–98.7% and 64.9%–94.3%, respectively.
Conclusions: The laboratory that participated in the ABCr PT before 2019 showed smaller bias in the creatinine assay compared to that of laboratories participating in the program for the first time after 2020. Efforts should be made to improve the quality of the creatinine assay through continuous participation in the ABCr PT survey.

Keywords: Accuracy, Creatinine, Proficiency testing

Supplementary File

  • Supplementary File
  • Share this article on :

    Stats or metrics