Validation Study of Mobile Lab for Clinical Biochemistry in Rural Population of Delhi
Keywords:
Mobile Lab, Labike, Diagnostic Lab, Biochemical Parameters, CLIPAbstract
Introduction: Prevalence of Non-communicable diseases is increasing in India. Prevention of risk factors and management of these diseases are possible and their complications can be prevented by early diagnosis but due to unavailability of diagnostic facilities at cheaper rates most of the patients remains undiagnosed in rural setting. Mobile lab (suitcase model & Labike model) was invented which could be used to provide diagnostic services and could easily be carried to the far flung and remote locations. However, validity of such device is important before its use in these areas.
Objective: To generate validation data using Mobile Lab (Labike & Suitcase model) to check its sensitivity and specificity against gold standard methods.
Material and methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted among 824 participants of either sex, aged 18 years and above in catchment area of Rural Health Training centres Nazafgarh New Delhi. The data were collected using the pre-tested questionnaires. For the Biochemical investigations (KFT, LFT, Lipid Profile, Glucose and Electrolyte panels) the blood samples (10ml) were collected from the subjects and were divided into two parts for each parameter. One part of the blood samples was kept for the Mobile lab investigations whereas another part was transported to the Department of Biochemistry of a tertiary care teaching institution, New Delhi for the estimation. The comparison of the results was done through the CLIP range of total Allowable error to define the acceptable limits. Bland and Altman plots are also used for describing the agreement between two quantitative measurements.
Results: Biochemical estimation were done fortotal18 parameters in which Uric Acid, Creatinine (-9.39%), Total Bilirubin (19.8%) SGOT (16.3%), SGPT (-17.6%), ALP (-14.7%), HDL (16.7%), Triglycerides (-16.8%) and Phosphorus (-10.3%) were within allowable limits.
Conclusion: From the results we can state that the Mobile lab is acceptable for most of the any biochemical parameters and can be used as the point of care device for diagnostic purpose with certain correction required for the measurement of Electrolyte panel and Direct Bilirubin test.
How to cite this article:
Kishore J, Tripathi N, Kumar N, Bhatnagar A, Chandra L. Validation Study of Mobile Lab for Clinical Biochemistry in Rural Population of Delhi. J Adv Res Med Sci Tech 2019; 6(1&2): 7-14.
References
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative
Measurement Methods, (3rd Ed.) (CLSI document EP5-A2, ISBN 1-56238-542-9, Pennsylvania, USA, 2004).
Hauck WW, Koch W, Abernethy D, Williams RL. Making sense of trueness, precision, accuracy, and uncertainty.
Pharmacopoeial Forum 2008; 34(3): 838-842. Available from: https://jhu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/
making-sense-of-trueness-precision-accuracy-anduncertainty- 3 [Google Scholar].
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), User verification of performance for precision and trueness
(2nd Ed.) (CLSI document EP15-A2 (ISBN 1-56238-574-7, Pennsylvania, USA, 2005).
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Estimation of total analytical error for clinical laboratory
methods, (CLSI EP21-A, 2003).
Menditto A, Patriarca M, Magnusson B. Understanding the meaning of accuracy, trueness and precision.
Accreditation Quality Assurance 2007; 12(1): 45-47.
Available from: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.springer-19cf153a-7814-327e-a001-463c52edfcaa [Google Scholar].
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Evaluation of the linearity of quantitative measurement approved guideline (2nd Ed.), (CLSI document EP6-A, ISBN 1-56238-498-8, Pennsylvania, USA, 2005).
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration of laboratories, (ISO/IEC 17025, 2005).
WHO. Laboratory Quality standards and their implementation. WHO 2011. Available from https://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s22409en/s22409en.pdf?ua=1
Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem 1974; 20(7): 825-833. [PubMed/Google Scholar].
Harr KE, Flatlend B, Nabity M, Freeman K. ASVCP guidelines: allowable total error guidelines for biochemistry. Vet Clin Pathol 2013; 42(4): 424-436. [PubMed/ Google Scholar].
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2010; 47(8): 931-936. Available from: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0020748909003204 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijnurstu.2009.10.001/ Google Scholar].
