Krouwer Consulting
 

 

Home
Up
Modeling
Freq. of Med. Errors
Frequency of Medical Errors II
Six Sigma
Six Sigma II
Six Sigma III
Outliers
Equivalent QC
Equivalent QC2
Sys. not People
Near Miss
Detection
Recovery
Risk Management
FMEA FRACAS
Fault Tree Example
Beware the Technical Administrator
Discrepant Analysis
FMEA Validation
Proficiency Testing and Six Sigma
It's Up To the Lab Director
Bland Altman Plots
Risk Management II
Unit Use QC
The reverse Pareto – not a good
Risk Management III
Pedigree of Approaches to Reduce Error
What it Takes to Get New Ideas Accepted
FMEA FRACAS FTs Pareto
When to conduct FMEA
Error Reporting Systems for Clin
Customer Misuse
Fault Isolation
Uniformity of Claims
Outliers in QC and Proficiency Testing
The quality of quality initiativ
Publishing in journals or on web
FDA Waiver Guidance
Pay for Performance
Pay for performance II
Performance vs. Attribute Goals
ISO Terminology
Latent Errors
Preventable medical errors
Troponin I
GUM Comment
More on GUM
Standards Issues
Slow Qual. Progress
More QC?
Report Writing
Software Validation
Dump Data

ISO Terminology – globally harmonized or gobbledygook

One of my hobbies is foreign languages, so if it were required to communicate clinical chemistry information in a foreign language, regardless of the language chosen, this would be entertaining for me. However, hobbies aside, one has to ask how useful is the current trend towards “global harmonization of terminology.”

Consider the following passage:

“The total error of that assay was marginal – the within-run imprecision was good but interferences caused accuracy problems. For details, see the appendix.”

Translated into an ISO globally harmonized version gives:

“The accuracy of that measurand was marginal – the repeatability was good but influence quantities caused bias problems. For details, see the annex.”

For most speakers or readers of English, the comprehensibility of the second version has decreased. This is particularly troublesome since statistical concepts are difficult, and changing terms often makes their comprehension more difficult. For example, consider some sections for the ISO accuracy definition (1).

·      Accuracy is a qualitative concept

·      Accuracy cannot be given a numerical value in terms of the measurand, only descriptions such as ‘sufficient’ or ‘insufficient’ for a stated purpose.

·      Accuracy of measurement is related to both trueness of measurement and precision of measurement;

What does all of this mean? For one, in ISO terms, the phrase “The accuracy for 95% of the results was between ± 5 mmol/L.” would be incorrect. This is a little difficult to understand since if this result met the accuracy goal, it would be correct in ISO terms to state: “The accuracy was sufficient.” Moreover, prior to global harmonization, accuracy meant how much bias there was. As an ISO term, accuracy refers to errors from all sources (e.g., bias and imprecision) so this means, every time accuracy is used, one must try to determine which definition was intended.

How many people will use the word measurand? What’s wrong with the word assay or analyte? What does “influence quantity” offer over interference?

Consider the simple words “annex” and “appendix” (2).

Appendix is defined as definition 1 as “additional or supplemental material at the end of a book or other writing”

Annex is defined as definition 5 c and noted as archaic as “a section added as to a document or addendum”

Remember Esperanto?

References

  1. See, http://www.clsi.org/ click on harmonized terminology database.
  2. Webster’s New World Dictionary Third College Edition. Neufelfdt, Ed. 1988 Simon and Schuster, New York.