New Paper on MU, TE, and the unnecessary struggle

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

"The" Westgard has a new editorial out in Clinical Chemistry, commenting on the latest developments in the debate on the use of measurement uncertainty (MU) and analytical total error (TE). This debate has flared up from time to time over the past two decades. We had recently reached a detente, if not an accord, in the work of the Task Finishing Group on Total Error, convened in the wake of the Milan 2014 meeting (which generated the Milan 2015 Consensus Hierarchy on Analytical Performance Specifications). Since that time, however, it appears MU advocates have continued to argue for the eradication of TE. We're not about to let that go unchallenged.

It's worth noting that, on our part, we are not making a similar counter-argument - that MU should be eliminated completely. Instead, we believe there is very helpful role that MU can play with manufacturing, but that MU is just not that helpful at the bench level. We prefer both MU and TE to complement one another, not compete against each other. It's disheartening to see that the two parameters forced into a fight for existence by more purist metrologists.

http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/early/2018/01/04/clinchem.2017.284406 (subscription required)