The Online Meeting was conducted by Roselena Montenegro, a pharmacist and biologist with extensive experience in laboratory quality, manager of the Testing Laboratory at Controllab, and a leader in strategic relationships within the diagnostic sector.
During the session, the main elements that support quality in the clinical laboratory were discussed, focusing on practices applicable to daily routines, such as factors that influence the reliability of results, process standardization, and patient safety. The importance of internal quality control and participation in proficiency testing was also highlighted.
With a practical and up-to-date approach, the online meeting helped reinforce the importance of a quality culture in the clinical laboratory routine, supporting the continuous improvement of processes and the reliability of analytical results.
Questions & Answers
The following questions were not addressed during the Online Meeting.
I have never understood why we need to report which reagent and equipment we use. In theory, the same patient should obtain similar results in different laboratories, even when different reagents and equipment are used. I have performed internal laboratory controls using my own samples, and the results were very similar, both in clinical chemistry and hematology. Could you please explain this to me?
Excellent question.
In theory, yes: the same patient should obtain similar results in different laboratories, regardless of the equipment or reagents used.
However, in practice, there are analytical differences among methodologies, calibrations, reagents, measurement principles, and analytical systems. That is why it is important to understand that Proficiency Testing consists of an interlaboratory comparison in which participating laboratories are evaluated in specific groups according to the analytical system used (reagent, method, equipment, etc.).
During the evaluation, the submitted data are analyzed and statistically processed to create comparable groups, considering that the market offers different analytical systems with distinct characteristics and variations.
Therefore, it is essential to report which equipment was used, which reagent/methodology was applied, and, in some cases, even the reagent lot number.
This makes it possible to compare results correctly, identify possible systematic biases, understand variations among laboratories, and ensure traceability and analytical reliability.
For example, two different methods may measure the same analyte but with different sensitivities, specificities, or interferences.
The same occurs in hematology: although results may be very similar, each manufacturer uses different technologies, algorithms, and reading systems.
And you are absolutely right about one very important point: when a laboratory has good standardization, proper calibration, internal quality control, and participates in external quality assessment/proficiency testing, the results tend to be very similar among laboratories.
That is precisely the goal of analytical quality: to reduce variability and ensure reliable results for the patient.
