The setting of analytical quality specifications in laboratory medicine has been a topic of discussion and debate for over 50 years: 15 years ago, as the subject matured and a profusion of recommendations appeared, many of them from expert groups, it was realised by a number of leading professionals that there was a need for a global consensus on the setting of such specifications. The Stockholm Conference held in 1999 on "Strategies to set global analytical quality specifications in laboratory medicine" achieved this and advocated the ubiquitous application of a hierarchical structure of approaches. The hierarchy has five levels, namely: 1) evaluation of the effect of analytical performance on clinical outcomes in specific clinical settings; 2) evaluation of the effect of analytical performance on clinical decisions in general using a) data based on components of biological variation, or b) analysis of clinicians' opinions; 3) published professional recommendations from a) national and international expert bodies, or b) expert local groups or individuals; 4) performance goals set by a) regulatory bodies, or b) organisers of external quality assessment (EQA) schemes; and 5) goals based on the current state of the art as a) demonstrated by data from EQA or proficiency testing scheme, or b) found in current publications on methodology. This approach has been much used since its wide promulgation, but there have been ongoing criticisms and new developments. The time seems right for an objective reappraisal of recommended strategies to set analytical performance goals.
Clinical Laboratory Techniques Consensus