1 Based on intra- (97 to 100%) and
interlaboratory (
94 to 95%) agreement for both drugs, th
2 The median
interlaboratory accuracy and precision of the assay for
3 Analysis of 3,420 MICs demonstrated higher
interlaboratory agreement (percentage of MIC pairs withi
4 Interlaboratory agreement among MICs (i.e., mode +/- 1 t
5 Excellent
interlaboratory agreement among the results obtained at
6 High
interlaboratory agreement and precision of CAP/CTM CMV t
7 Interlaboratory agreement based on interpretive category
8 of WHO quantitative standards would improve
interlaboratory agreement for viral load testing; howeve
9 Interlaboratory agreement in determining seropositivity
10 ility study, 9 of 15 clinical strains showed
interlaboratory agreement of >90% at the 80% inhibition
11 the QC study, 4 of the 6 ATCC strains showed
interlaboratory agreement of >90%.
12 The overall
interlaboratory agreement of 24-h visual readings and 48
13 The present study evaluated the
interlaboratory agreement of the results for the microdi
14 Interlaboratory agreement of viral load assays depends o
15 Interlaboratory agreement of viral load assays depends o
16 We conducted an intralaboratory and
interlaboratory agreement study to assess the accuracy a
17 Both intra- and
interlaboratory agreement was 100%.
18 The overall pairwise
interlaboratory agreement was 97.7%.
19 aluation of growth inhibition) on intra- and
interlaboratory agreement was analyzed.
20 Excellent
interlaboratory agreement was observed with the challeng
21 Good
interlaboratory agreement was observed with the LFD, as
22 ME1111 demonstrated excellent
interlaboratory agreement when tested against dermatophy
23 on and typing assays demonstrating excellent
interlaboratory agreement will allow investigators to be
24 Based on
interlaboratory agreement, the optimal testing condition
25 As part of continuing cooperation to improve
interlaboratory agreement, we are preparing bulk serum c
26 lations and MIC endpoint criteria to improve
interlaboratory agreement.
27 Both intra- and
interlaboratory agreements were >98% for all three drugs
28 Our objective was to evaluate the
interlaboratory and interstudy reproducibility and the e
29 This is the first
interlaboratory assessment of a widely used, targeted me
30 Conclusion
Interlaboratory bias and variation of US-derived quantit
31 IRMS systems after replicating the InterCarb
interlaboratory calibration.
32 These
interlaboratory challenge data illuminate the relative i
33 The Mixed Stain Study 3 (MSS3)
interlaboratory challenge exercise evaluated the 2001 pe
34 plasma from healthy individuals) the median
interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) was 7.6%,
35 ide enrichment program to facilitate uniform
interlaboratory collaboration and exchange of phosphopro
36 This study demonstrates
interlaboratory comparability of FT-ICR-MS molecular pro
37 d minimizing potential inconsistencies among
interlaboratory comparative studies.
38 To this end, we have conducted an
interlaboratory comparative study of the 1D PROFILE and
39 s of Phi(f) of scattering samples, the first
interlaboratory comparison (ILC) of three laboratories f
40 An
interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was organized with the
41 nd well characterized, and should facilitate
interlaboratory comparison and standardization.
42 S (GC-qMS), where GC-qMS was validated in an
interlaboratory comparison between Munich and Neuchatel
43 Results from the
interlaboratory comparison demonstrated that most quanti
44 centrations derived from the NIST Lipidomics
Interlaboratory Comparison Exercise.
45 Technology (NIST) has administered nearly 40
interlaboratory comparison exercises devoted to fat-solu
46 articipant measurement performance in single
interlaboratory comparison exercises; we here apply and
47 The related
interlaboratory comparison involved 13 expert laboratori
48 ging concern (CECs) was performed through an
interlaboratory comparison involving 25 research and com
49 rmance of WGS by the Kyrgyz laboratory in an
interlaboratory comparison of 30 M. tuberculosis genomes
50 An
interlaboratory comparison of a protocol consisting of m
51 ntration, and therefore we also conducted an
interlaboratory comparison of methods for urinary creati
52 In this context, a first bilateral
interlaboratory comparison on surface group quantificati
53 chniques utilized may be applicable to other
interlaboratory comparison programs.
54 , bottom-up HDX-MS measurements, the present
interlaboratory comparison project evaluated deuterium u
55 s have significant implications for reliable
interlaboratory comparison studies, accurate labeling of
56 This paper presents the first post hoc
interlaboratory comparison study of the spICP-MS techniq
57 An
interlaboratory comparison study was also conducted usin
58 nsensus procedure, developed during a recent
interlaboratory comparison study.
59 e-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS)
interlaboratory comparison was conducted on mixtures of
60 The
interlaboratory comparison was designed to see how well
61 In this
interlaboratory comparison, organized by the NORMAN Netw
62 e analyte, and accuracy evaluated through an
interlaboratory comparison.
63 e, we report the results of an international
interlaboratory comparison.
64 lk and chicken feed were analyzed within the
interlaboratory comparison.
65 mantic and graphical tools developed to help
interlaboratory-
comparison-exercise participants interpr
66 demands precise quantification methods, with
interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) being crucial for per
67 sampling techniques and proposes a model for
interlaboratory comparisons across current cytokine dete
68 on of this isotope reference is valuable for
interlaboratory comparisons and conducting robust carbon
69 While PFGE is state-of-the-art,
interlaboratory comparisons are difficult because the re
70 Interlaboratory comparisons are reported on a dry mass b
71 In previous RENEB
interlaboratory comparisons based on the manual scoring
72 m, rapid, and reliable, it is well suited to
interlaboratory comparisons during epidemiological inves
73 e for considering the extraction method when
interlaboratory comparisons of PM(2.5) toxicology resear
74 cal or experimental bias, allowing realistic
interlaboratory comparisons of subtle biomarker informat
75 The performance characteristics and
interlaboratory comparisons of the T-cell flow cytometry
76 Interlaboratory comparisons showed high agreement for mo
77 limiting when conducting batch analyses and
interlaboratory comparisons to harmonize BAT methodology
78 monized templates improve the reliability of
interlaboratory comparisons, data reuse and meta-analyse
79 The results are validated by
interlaboratory comparisons, demonstrating agreement wit
80 g methods to facilitate rapid and harmonized
interlaboratory comparisons, essential for global survei
81 ng isolates of P. marneffei and facilitating
interlaboratory comparisons.
82 information once obtained should also permit
interlaboratory comparisons.
83 escens genomic epidemiology and facilitating
interlaboratory comparisons.
84 ctions does not exist, leading to inaccurate
interlaboratory comparisons.
85 s/mL into IU/mL for HDVL standardization and
interlaboratory comparisons.
86 , thus providing greater confidence in these
interlaboratory comparisons.
87 RQ) values from prior assays, and validated
interlaboratory concordance by aliquot swapping.
88 or antiretinal antibodies detection and poor
interlaboratory concordance make the diagnosis challengi
89 Interlaboratory concordance of miR-371a-3p was high, but
90 Pairwise t-tests were used to test for
interlaboratory concordance.
91 ta analysis protocol for qPCR MST assays for
interlaboratory consistency and comparability.
92 e median assay precision was 5.4%, with high
interlaboratory correlation (R(2) > 0.96).
93 Interlaboratory correlations, likewise, ranged between 0
94 ay CV 13.21%), and a strong correlation upon
interlaboratory cross validation with an existing immuno
95 with 85% of metabolites exhibiting a median
interlaboratory CV of <20%.
96 Reproducibility was greatly improved with
interlaboratory CVs ranging from 16 to 21%, i.e. up to f
97 ystem, and simplifies method development and
interlaboratory data alignment.
98 It has enabled the direct comparison of
interlaboratory data as well as quality control in clini
99 differences ( P < 0.05) derived from pooled
interlaboratory data varied from 1.5- to 26-fold dependi
100 These
interlaboratory differences (8 of 30 parameters) far out
101 Interlaboratory differences across runs were </=0.10 log
102 However, there are
interlaboratory differences in reported levels of baseli
103 Interlaboratory differences were more marked than intral
104 Interlaboratory differences, however, probably due to re
105 ssociated viruses continues to be limited by
interlaboratory disagreement.
106 mance even for strains with higher levels of
interlaboratory discordance.
107 ommercially prepared antisera and intra- and
interlaboratory discrepancies arising from differences i
108 An
interlaboratory evaluation (two centers) of the Etest me
109 on detection methods participated in a blind
interlaboratory evaluation of a prototype of SRM 2394.
110 An
interlaboratory evaluation of the amplification, sequenc
111 rentiate better and provide standardized and
interlaboratory exchangeable data.
112 suggest that for some (but not all) viruses,
interlaboratory harmonization can be improved through th
113 of 465 isolates were examined for intra- and
interlaboratory identification reproducibility and gave
114 We have carried out the first
interlaboratory LC-MS lipidomics experiment for single c
115 ingomyelin species previously reported in an
interlaboratory lipidomics harmonization study.
116 ct fell within one standard deviation of the
interlaboratory mean for groundwater and five out of sev
117 tute of Standards and Technology is enhanced
interlaboratory measurement comparability for fat-solubl
118 dard deviations below 1.5% were observed for
interlaboratory measurements (<1.0% for 85.2% of ions) a
119 ave been validated (to within 6% or less) by
interlaboratory measurements at three National Measureme
120 ate the accuracy of intra/intertechnique and
interlaboratory measurements, samples of phosphate buffe
121 An
interlaboratory method comparison of urine samples colle
122 rom a NIST standard reference material as an
interlaboratory method validation (mean bias = 15%, n =
123 Interlaboratory MICs for all isolates were in 92 to 100%
124 method was additionally exploited to derive
interlaboratory performance characteristics.
125 An important aspect of this is the
interlaboratory precision (reproducibility) of the analy
126 amples 82% of metabolite measurements had an
interlaboratory precision of <20%, while 83% of averaged
127 ross all laboratories was demonstrated, with
interlaboratory precision of 4.1-7.7% coefficient of var
128 ralaboratory precision) and reproducibility (
interlaboratory precision), measured as coefficients of
129 ication (LOQ), and measurement of intra- and
interlaboratory precision.
130 oyed in the homogeneity and stability tests,
interlaboratory program, and assignment of uncertainty v
131 An
interlaboratory quality control (QC) program for pneumoc
132 Interlaboratory reliability for HPV DNA positivity and H
133 To date, however, the intra- and
interlaboratory reliability of this procedure has not be
134 our statistical approach for estimating the
interlaboratory replicability of a single laboratory dis
135 However, the
interlaboratory replicability of these assays has not be
136 Interlaboratory reproducibility among MICs was most vari
137 The approach shows
interlaboratory reproducibility and allows for the excha
138 Interlaboratory reproducibility and intra-laboratory pre
139 new CGA-specific PCR assay, which exhibited
interlaboratory reproducibility and stability under vari
140 The overall
interlaboratory reproducibility by each method was > or
141 ulticenter study was conducted to assess the
interlaboratory reproducibility of broth microdilution t
142 icenter study was performed to establish the
interlaboratory reproducibility of Etest, to provide an
143 d, 8 independent laboratories determined the
interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility
144 s prospective multicenter study compares the
interlaboratory reproducibility of PZA susceptibility re
145 ulticenter study was conducted to assess the
interlaboratory reproducibility of susceptibility testin
146 The
interlaboratory reproducibility of the results for two c
147 The
interlaboratory reproducibility of YeastOne and referenc
148 Here we report results of a large
interlaboratory reproducibility study of ultra performan
149 The correlation coefficient for an
interlaboratory reproducibility study was 0.9892.
150 ungin) to 100% (caspofungin, micafungin) and
interlaboratory reproducibility was 99%.
151 In contrast, better
interlaboratory reproducibility was determined between f
152 Excellent overall
interlaboratory reproducibility was observed with the Vi
153 teen laboratories participated in a study of
interlaboratory reproducibility with caspofungin microdi
154 six-center) study evaluated the performance (
interlaboratory reproducibility, compatibility with refe
155 The EcoFABs utilized here generated high
interlaboratory reproducibility, demonstrating their val
156 re tested by a second laboratory to evaluate
interlaboratory reproducibility.
157 tegy for Aspergillus fumigatus subtyping for
interlaboratory reproducibility.
158 Differences in
interlaboratory research protocols contribute to the con
159 ruments located in independent laboratories (
interlaboratory RSD < 3% for 98% of molecules).
160 This study assessed
interlaboratory sensitivity and reproducibility in the a
161 24 h in RPMI 1640 or AM3 also gave the best
interlaboratory separation of Candida isolates of known
162 Intra- and
interlaboratory spectral reproducibility yielded a diffe
163 The observed
interlaboratory standard deviation (SD) associated with
164 As with any molecular identifier,
interlaboratory standardization must precede broad range
165 to the lack of specificity, sensitivity, and
interlaboratory standardization.
166 across laboratories and potentially lead to
interlaboratory standards of single-cell metrics.
167 method has been validated through intra- and
interlaboratory studies and has shown excellent recoveri
168 Interlaboratory studies in rodents using standardized pr
169 were also applied to evaluate stability and
interlaboratory studies results, respectively.
170 We present a novel workflow to enable
interlaboratory studies, comprising live-cell imaging an
171 behavior is often presented as a property of
interlaboratory studies, which makes controlled replicat
172 orwitz scaling, which has been reported from
interlaboratory studies.
173 eatments plants (STPs) and the results of an
interlaboratory study (ILS), respectively.
174 Standards Challenge (MSC), an international
interlaboratory study designed to assess the impact of m
175 Project on Advanced Materials and Standards)
interlaboratory study for desorption electrospray ioniza
176 eed, two immunoassays have been tested in an
interlaboratory study for their capability to detect rum
177 The low RSD and biases observed in this
interlaboratory study illustrate the potential of DTIM-M
178 performance of the assay was evaluated by an
interlaboratory study in which three independent laborat
179 Reanalysis of results from an
interlaboratory study of a selected biochemical process
180 in preparation for method application in an
interlaboratory study on mAbs structural analysis coordi
181 e performance of argon cluster sources in an
interlaboratory study under the auspices of VAMAS (Versa
182 An
interlaboratory study using identical samples shared amo
183 An
interlaboratory study was performed in five different la
184 An
interlaboratory study, conducted using blinded NA008 Hig
185 To that end, an
interlaboratory study, involving the original six labora
186 In the context of this
interlaboratory study, this threshold was also suitable
187 ere shared among the laboratories to measure
interlaboratory test agreement.
188 Accuracy was checked via an EC-sponsored
interlaboratory trial.
189 DA-HS-GC-MS method and reference values from
interlaboratory trials.
190 Empirical evaluation and
interlaboratory validation of selected variations in sph
191 nally, a plan exists to pursue more extended
interlaboratory validation studies to advance this metho
192 The intra- and
interlaboratory variabilities of the molecular size meas
193 learance values exhibited a reduced level of
interlaboratory variability (5.3-38% CV).
194 al thyroid samples were normalized to remove
interlaboratory variability and then analyzed by unsuper
195 Unfortunately, the currently observed
interlaboratory variability caused by inconsistent assay
196 Viral loads showed a high degree of
interlaboratory variability for all tested viruses, with
197 Repeatability and intra- and
interlaboratory variability in G6PD activity measurement
198 This study examines
interlaboratory variability in the measurement of entero
199 Significant
interlaboratory variability is observed in testing the c
200 Overall,
interlaboratory variability levels remained low (<10% co
201 that this feature was likely responsible for
interlaboratory variability observed from in vitro inves
202 Intraassay, intralaboratory, and
interlaboratory variability of NGS 472-C estimates acros
203 r human CMV DNA has raised hopes of reducing
interlaboratory variability of results.
204 We investigated the degree of
interlaboratory variability of several LD serologic test
205 earance values ranged from 4.1 to 30%, while
interlaboratory variability ranged from 27 to 61%.
206 The IFN-gamma ELISpot
interlaboratory variability was 15.9-49.9% coefficient o
207 e results on most assays using CDC criteria,
interlaboratory variability was considerable and remains
208 Although
interlaboratory variability was found in the degree of n
209 However, considerable
interlaboratory variability was seen in the results of t
210 ELISA-A showed higher precision and lower
interlaboratory variability, yet ELISA-B exhibited sligh
211 on agars were significant factors leading to
interlaboratory variability.
212 ex and multiplex amplification approaches on
interlaboratory variability.
213 Interlaboratory variance for the NIST SRM-1950 has a med
214 Interlaboratory variant interpretation contributes to di
215 Due to unacceptably high
interlaboratory variation in caspofungin MIC values, we
216 Interlaboratory variation in detecting autoantibodies re
217 strains were detected), and gave the largest
interlaboratory variation in performance.
218 This
interlaboratory variation is in fact smaller than the ma
219 ion platforms optimal for vaginal fluids and
interlaboratory variation limit their use for microbicid
220 lack of standardization, and interassay and
interlaboratory variation makes it difficult to determin
221 dida to caspofungin due to unacceptably high
interlaboratory variation of caspofungin MIC values.
222 Because it is internally standardized,
interlaboratory variation should be minimal.
223 gestion and amylases" identified significant
interlaboratory variation with this protocol.
224 ds limited monoclonal antibody availability,
interlaboratory variation, and the requirement for cultu
225 MET exhibited the least
interlaboratory variation.
226 wever, most were associated with significant
interlaboratory variation.
227 offers greater reproducibility, would reduce
interlaboratory variations and limit discrepancies in re
228 We assessed
interlaboratory variations in editing and their impact o
229 Interlaboratory variations were minimal, as the percenta