Measurement Uncertainty in the Hemostasis Laboratory

Abstract

Clinical laboratory results are inherently uncertain. Variability arises when repeating measurements of the same sample under different conditions. Measurement uncertainty (MU) is a metrological framework that quantifies this variability, enabling clinical interpretation and comparison of results within and between patients. In hemostasis assays, MU describes uncertainty propagation across the entire traceability chain—from international standards to final patient results.

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty of Measurement (GUM) offered a statistically rigorous but complex method for estimating MU, limiting its widespread adoption. A relatively recent technical specification (TS) from the International Standardization Organization (ISO; ISO/TS 20914:2019) introduced a top–down approach that balances rigor with operational feasibility, supporting ISO 15189 compliance. However, its applicability to specialist areas such as hemostasis has been questioned. Furthermore, despite improved understanding of calculation methods, international guidance recommends against reporting results, together with MU, directly to service users; instead, the laboratory is required to provide it upon request. This review explores the implementation of different approaches for MU in hemostasis laboratories.

Keywords

measurement uncertainty - metrological traceability - analytical performance specifications - clinical utility

Publication History

Received: 26 August 2025

Accepted: 15 October 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
18 October 2025

Article published online:
10 November 2025

• References

• 1 Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM). 2012
• 2 Farrance I, Frenkel R. Uncertainty of measurement: A review of the rules for calculating uncertainty components through functional relationships. Clin Biochem Rev 2012; 33 (02) 49-75
• 3 Panteghini M. Analytical performance specifications for combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability. Clin Chem Lab Med 2024; 62 (08) 1497-1504
• 4 Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Expression of MU in Laboratory Medicine Approved Guideline. 2012
• 5 (ISO) IOfS. ISO/TS 20914:2019 - Medical Laboratories – Practical guidance for the estimation of measurement uncertainty. In: British Standards Institute; 2019
• 6 Farrance I, Frenkel R, Badrick T. ISO/TS 20914:2019 - a critical commentary. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 58 (08) 1182-1190
• 7 ISO. ISO 15189:2012—Medical laboratories: particular requirements for quality and competence.
• 8 Chantarangkul V, van den Besselaar AM, Witteveen E, Tripodi A. International collaborative study for the calibration of a proposed international standard for thromboplastin, rabbit, plain. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4 (06) 1339-1345
• 9 Critchfield GC, Bennett ST. The international normalized ratio and uncertainty. Validation of a probabilistic model. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102 (01) 115-122
• 10 Dorgalaleh A, Favaloro EJ, Bahraini M, Rad F. Standardization of prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR). Int J Lab Hematol 2021; 43 (01) 21-28
• 11 Critchfield GC, Bennett ST. The influence of the reference mean prothrombin time on the international normalized ratio. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102 (06) 806-811
• 12 Bowyer AE, Gosselin RC. Factor VIII and Factor IX activity measurements for hemophilia diagnosis and related treatments. Semin Thromb Hemost 2023; 49 (06) 609-620
• 13 Mourey G, Tachon G, Pellequer JL. et al. A Haut-Doubs FVII variant depending on species-derived-thromboplastin reagent (F7:p.Arg337His). Haemophilia 2014; 20 (04) e347-e349
• 14 Lim YK, Kweon OJ, Lee MK, Kim HR. Estimation of measurement uncertainty of factor assays using the Monte Carlo simulation. Am J Clin Pathol 2021; 156: 717-721 . Accessed October 24, 2025 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33978155
• 15 Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (BIPM, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML). Evaluation of measurement data | Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. 2008. Accessed October 24, 2025 at: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/2071204/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf/cb0ef43f-baa5-11cf-3f85-4dcd86f77bd6
• 16 Farrance I, Frenkel R. Uncertainty in measurement: A review of Monte Carlo simulation using Microsoft Excel for the calculation of uncertainties through functional relationships, including uncertainties in empirically derived constants. Clin Biochem Rev 2014; 35 (01) 37-61
• 17 Rigo-Bonnin R, Canalias F. Measurement uncertainty estimation for derived biological quantities. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 59 (01) e1-e7
• 18 Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR. et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015; 53 (06) 833-835
• 19 van den Besselaar AMHP, Stavelin A, Kitchen S. et al. Defining a metrologically traceable and sustainable calibration hierarchy of international normalized ratio for monitoring of vitamin K antagonist treatment in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17511:2020 standard: communication from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine-SSC/ISTH working group on prothrombin time/international normalized ratio standardization. J Thromb Haemost 2024; 22 (04) 1236-1248
• 20 Bennett ST, Critchfield GC. Intermountain Laboratory Data Project. Examination of International Normalised Ratio (INR) imprecision by comparison of exact and approximate formulas. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47 (07) 635-638
• 21 Taberner DA, Poller L, Thomson JM, Darby KV. Effect of international sensitivity index (ISI) of thromboplastins on precision of international normalised ratios (INR). J Clin Pathol 1989; 42 (01) 92-96
• 22 Kirkwood TB. Calibration of reference thromboplastins and standardisation of the prothrombin time ratio. Thromb Haemost 1983; 49 (03) 238-244
• 23 Lim YK, Kweon OJ, Lee MK, Kim HR. Estimating the measurement uncertainties of the international sensitivity index of 12 thromboplastins through Monte Carlo simulation. Thromb Res 2023; 224: 32-37
• 24 Lim YK, Kweon OJ, Lee MK, Kim B, Kim HR. Top-down and bottom-up approaches for the estimation of measurement uncertainty in coagulation assays. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 58 (09) 1525-1533
• 25 Panteghini M. The simple reproducibility of a measurement result does not equal its overall measurement uncertainty. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022; 60 (10) e221-e222
• 26 Braga F, Infusino I, Panteghini M. Performance criteria for combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015; 53 (06) 905-912
• 27 Infusino I, Panteghini M. Measurement uncertainty: Friend or foe?. Clin Biochem 2018; 57: 3-6
• 28 Braga F, Panteghini M. Defining permissible limits for the combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability. Clin Biochem 2018; 57: 7-11
• 29 Braga F, Panteghini M. Verification of in vitro medical diagnostics (IVD) metrological traceability: responsibilities and strategies. Clin Chim Acta 2014; 432: 55-61
• 30 Lee JH, Choi JH, Youn JS, Cha YJ, Song W, Park AJ. Comparison between bottom-up and top-down approaches in the estimation of measurement uncertainty. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015; 53 (07) 1025-1032
• 31 Favaloro E. Uncertainties in measurement of uncertainty measurements: A commentary from the perspective of a Specialist Haemostasis Laboratory. Aust J Med Sci 2006; 27: 72-83 . Accessed October 24, 2025 at: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.182099435319554
• 32 Rigo-Bonnin R, Díaz-Troyano N, García-Tejada L, Marcè-Galindo A, Valbuena-Asensio M, Canalias F. Estimation of the measurement uncertainty and practical suggestion for the description of the metrological traceability in clinical laboratories. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2021; 31 (01) 010501
• 33 International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic medical devices—Requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples. ISO 17511:2020. Geneva: ISO; 2020
• 34 Panteghini M, Braga F. Implementation of metrological traceability in laboratory medicine: where we are and what is missing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 58 (08) 1200-1204
• 35 Zhang HP, Zhou WB, Li CB, Du ZL, Peng MT. [Evaluation and characterization of the certified reference materials for coagulation factor VIII and IX activity testing]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2016; 96 (20) 1613-1617
• 36 Guy S, Sermon-Cadd AM, Shepherd FM, Kitchen S, Bowyer AE. A cost-effective approach to factor assay calibration using a truncated live calibration curve. Int J Lab Hematol 2019; 41 (05) 679-683
• 37 Panteghini M. Not all biases are created equal: how to deal with bias on laboratory measurements. Clin Chem Lab Med 2024; 63 (05) 916-922
• 38 Meijer P, de Maat MP, Kluft C, Haverkate F, van Houwelingen HC. Long-term analytical performance of hemostasis field methods as assessed by evaluation of the results of an external quality assessment program for antithrombin. Clin Chem 2002; 48 (07) 1011-1015
• 39 Qin Y, Zhou R, Wang W. et al. Uncertainty evaluation in clinical chemistry, immunoassay, hematology and coagulation analytes using only external quality assessment data. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56 (09) 1447-1457
• 40 St Ledger K, Feussner A, Kalina U. et al. International comparative field study evaluating the assay performance of AFSTYLA in plasma samples at clinical hemostasis laboratories. J Thromb Haemost 2018; 16 (03) 555-564
• 41 Peyvandi F, Oldenburg J, Friedman KD. A critical appraisal of one-stage and chromogenic assays of factor VIII activity. J Thromb Haemost 2016; 14 (02) 248-261
• 42 Martinello F, Snoj N, Skitek M, Jerin A. The top-down approach to measurement uncertainty: which formula should we use in laboratory medicine?. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2020; 30 (02) 020101
• 43 Guy S, Shepherd MF, Bowyer AE, Kitchen S. How to assess parallelism in factor assays: coefficient of variation of results with different dilutions or slope ratio?. Int J Lab Hematol 2023; 45 (02) 229-240
• 44 Favaloro EJ, Pasalic L. Should multiple factor dilutions be performed for all patient coagulation factor assays? Let the debate begin!. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2022; 6 (02) e12689
• 45 Cui M, Xu L, Wang H, Ju S, Xu S, Jing R. Combining Nordtest method and bootstrap resampling for measurement uncertainty estimation of hematology analytes in a medical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2017; 50 (18) 1067-1072
• 46 JCGM (BIPM, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML). Evaluation of measurement data – Supplement 1 to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” – Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method. 2008. Accessed October 24, 2025 at: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/2071204/JCGM_101_2008_E.pdf/325dcaad-c15a-407c-1105-8b7f322d651c
• 47 Chen H, Zhang L, Bi X, Deng X. Two evaluation budgets for the measurement uncertainty of glucose in clinical chemistry. Korean J Lab Med 2011; 31 (03) 167-171
• 48 Lim YK, Kweon OJ, Lee MK, Kim HR. Estimation of measurement uncertainty of factor assays using the Monte Carlo simulation. Am J Clin Pathol 2021; 156 (05) 717-721
• 49 van den Besselaar AM, Witteveen E, van der Meer FJ. Uncertainty of international sensitivity index and international normalized ratio. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11 (08) 1615-1617
• 50 Banfi G, Del Fabbro M. Biological variation in tests of hemostasis. Semin Thromb Hemost 2008; 34 (07) 635-641
• 51 de Maat MP, van Schie M, Kluft C, Leebeek FW, Meijer P. Biological variation of hemostasis variables in thrombosis and bleeding: consequences for performance specifications. Clin Chem 2016; 62 (12) 1639-1646