Next Article in Journal
We All Have a Role to Play: Redressing Inequities for Children Living with CAH and Other Chronic Health Conditions of Childhood in Resource-Poor Settings
Next Article in Special Issue
Translating Molecular Technologies into Routine Newborn Screening Practice
Previous Article in Journal
Newborn Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Using Pulse Oximetry: Value and Unique Challenges in Developing Regions
Previous Article in Special Issue
National Program for External Quality Assessment of Chinese Newborn Screening Laboratories
Open AccessArticle

Harmonizing Newborn Screening Laboratory Proficiency Test Results Using the CDC NSQAP Reference Materials

1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Sciences, Newborn Screening and Molecular Biology Branch, MS F19, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA
2
Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, MI 49221, USA
3
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Sciences, Tobacco and Volatiles Branch, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA
4
Wadsworth Center/New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY 12201-0509, USA
5
Katherine A. Kelley State Public Health Laboratory, Connecticut Department of Public Health, Rocky Hill, CT 06067, USA
6
Arizona Department of Health Services, Office of Newborn Screening, Phoenix, AZ 85007, USA
7
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53726, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2020, 6(3), 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns6030075
Received: 7 August 2020 / Revised: 3 September 2020 / Accepted: 12 September 2020 / Published: 17 September 2020
Newborn screening (NBS) laboratories cannot accurately compare mass spectrometry-derived results and cutoff values due to differences in testing methodologies. The objective of this study was to assess harmonization of laboratory proficiency test (PT) results using quality control (QC) data. Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program (NSQAP) QC and PT data reported from 302 laboratories in 2019 were used to compare results among laboratories. QC materials were provided as dried blood spot cards which included a base pool and the base pool enriched with specific concentrations of metabolites in a linear range. QC data reported by laboratories were regressed on QC data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and laboratory’s regression parameters were used to harmonize their PT result. In general, harmonization tended to reduce overall variation in PT data across laboratories. The metabolites glutarylcarnitine (C5DC), tyrosine, and phenylalanine were displayed to highlight inter- and intra-method variability in NBS results. Several limitations were identified using retrospective data for harmonization, and future studies will address these limitations to further assess feasibility of using NSQAP QC data to harmonize PT data. Harmonizing NBS data using common QC materials appears promising to aid result comparison between laboratories. View Full-Text
Keywords: mass spectrometry; normalization; newborn screening; proficiency testing; metabolite mass spectrometry; normalization; newborn screening; proficiency testing; metabolite
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Pickens, C.A.; Sternberg, M.; Seeterlin, M.; De Jesús, V.R.; Morrissey, M.; Manning, A.; Bhakta, S.; Held, P.K.; Mei, J.; Cuthbert, C.; Petritis, K. Harmonizing Newborn Screening Laboratory Proficiency Test Results Using the CDC NSQAP Reference Materials. Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2020, 6, 75.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop