Methods comparison: An alternative approach for evaluating the impact of a modification to a validated assay

Monica M. Reising, Kate R. Schumann, Beate Crossley, Patricia S. Glas, Richard H. Jacobson, Kathy L. Kurth, Janice C. Pedersen, David Siev, Barbara M. Martin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The current report discusses the process in which a methods comparison study in the National Animal Health Laboratory Network is performed. Specific details are provided for designing and analyzing studies intended to evaluate analytical sensitivity, efficiency, analytical specificity, cross-contamination, repeatability, operator variability, and to compare the performance of methods using diagnostic samples. As an example, a case study is presented comparing the performance of a candidate reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) chemistry to the current RT-PCR chemistry in use when the assay was originally validated. The present study revealed that, for all of the validation factors evaluated, the candidate method performed at least as well and generally better than the current method. The candidate method was, therefore, deemed fit for the original intended purpose of the current method and rendered acceptable for use. A discussion of the case study is intended to further motivate consideration of the study designs chosen.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)480-487
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

reaction chemistry
assays
analytical specificity
Reverse Transcription
reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
case studies
methodology
cross contamination
Polymerase Chain Reaction
animal health
diagnostic techniques
repeatability
Laboratory Animals
detection limit
experimental design
Health
sampling

Keywords

  • Methods comparison
  • polymerase chain reaction
  • validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Methods comparison : An alternative approach for evaluating the impact of a modification to a validated assay. / Reising, Monica M.; Schumann, Kate R.; Crossley, Beate; Glas, Patricia S.; Jacobson, Richard H.; Kurth, Kathy L.; Pedersen, Janice C.; Siev, David; Martin, Barbara M.

In: Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2014, p. 480-487.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Reising, Monica M. ; Schumann, Kate R. ; Crossley, Beate ; Glas, Patricia S. ; Jacobson, Richard H. ; Kurth, Kathy L. ; Pedersen, Janice C. ; Siev, David ; Martin, Barbara M. / Methods comparison : An alternative approach for evaluating the impact of a modification to a validated assay. In: Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2014 ; Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 480-487.
@article{4dbfbbfe9c1c426189035fead886d928,
title = "Methods comparison: An alternative approach for evaluating the impact of a modification to a validated assay",
abstract = "The current report discusses the process in which a methods comparison study in the National Animal Health Laboratory Network is performed. Specific details are provided for designing and analyzing studies intended to evaluate analytical sensitivity, efficiency, analytical specificity, cross-contamination, repeatability, operator variability, and to compare the performance of methods using diagnostic samples. As an example, a case study is presented comparing the performance of a candidate reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) chemistry to the current RT-PCR chemistry in use when the assay was originally validated. The present study revealed that, for all of the validation factors evaluated, the candidate method performed at least as well and generally better than the current method. The candidate method was, therefore, deemed fit for the original intended purpose of the current method and rendered acceptable for use. A discussion of the case study is intended to further motivate consideration of the study designs chosen.",
keywords = "Methods comparison, polymerase chain reaction, validation",
author = "Reising, {Monica M.} and Schumann, {Kate R.} and Beate Crossley and Glas, {Patricia S.} and Jacobson, {Richard H.} and Kurth, {Kathy L.} and Pedersen, {Janice C.} and David Siev and Martin, {Barbara M.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1177/1040638714535402",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "480--487",
journal = "Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation",
issn = "1040-6387",
publisher = "American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods comparison

T2 - An alternative approach for evaluating the impact of a modification to a validated assay

AU - Reising, Monica M.

AU - Schumann, Kate R.

AU - Crossley, Beate

AU - Glas, Patricia S.

AU - Jacobson, Richard H.

AU - Kurth, Kathy L.

AU - Pedersen, Janice C.

AU - Siev, David

AU - Martin, Barbara M.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The current report discusses the process in which a methods comparison study in the National Animal Health Laboratory Network is performed. Specific details are provided for designing and analyzing studies intended to evaluate analytical sensitivity, efficiency, analytical specificity, cross-contamination, repeatability, operator variability, and to compare the performance of methods using diagnostic samples. As an example, a case study is presented comparing the performance of a candidate reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) chemistry to the current RT-PCR chemistry in use when the assay was originally validated. The present study revealed that, for all of the validation factors evaluated, the candidate method performed at least as well and generally better than the current method. The candidate method was, therefore, deemed fit for the original intended purpose of the current method and rendered acceptable for use. A discussion of the case study is intended to further motivate consideration of the study designs chosen.

AB - The current report discusses the process in which a methods comparison study in the National Animal Health Laboratory Network is performed. Specific details are provided for designing and analyzing studies intended to evaluate analytical sensitivity, efficiency, analytical specificity, cross-contamination, repeatability, operator variability, and to compare the performance of methods using diagnostic samples. As an example, a case study is presented comparing the performance of a candidate reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) chemistry to the current RT-PCR chemistry in use when the assay was originally validated. The present study revealed that, for all of the validation factors evaluated, the candidate method performed at least as well and generally better than the current method. The candidate method was, therefore, deemed fit for the original intended purpose of the current method and rendered acceptable for use. A discussion of the case study is intended to further motivate consideration of the study designs chosen.

KW - Methods comparison

KW - polymerase chain reaction

KW - validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904286543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904286543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1040638714535402

DO - 10.1177/1040638714535402

M3 - Article

C2 - 24899621

AN - SCOPUS:84904286543

VL - 26

SP - 480

EP - 487

JO - Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation

JF - Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation

SN - 1040-6387

IS - 4

ER -