DOI: 10.1039/A807462C
(Paper)
Reference Section for: Analyst, 1998, 123, 2803-2807
The interpretation of data from collaborative trials: comparing the harmonised protocol with the Analytical Methods Committee robust method
(Note: The full text of this document is currently only available in the PDF Version )
Philip J. Lowthian, Michael Thompson and Roger Wood
Abstract
Two methods of interpreting collaborative trial data containing discordant values were compared. The trials studied included 32 different materials with analyte concentrations covering a wide range. The bootstrap was used to estimate the frequency distributions and standard errors of the statistics. There was no meaningful difference between the results of the two methods of interpretation.
References
- ‘Council Directive 93/99/EEC on the Subject of Additional Measures Concerning the Official Control of Foodstuffs’, Off. J. Eur. Communities: Legis., 1993, L290 Search PubMed.
- ‘Protocol for the Design, Conduct and Interpretation of Method Performance Studies’, Pure Appl. Chem., 1995, 67, 331 Search PubMed.
- ISO 5725, ‘Precision of Test Methods’, International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
- Analytical Methods Committee, Analyst, 1989, 114, 1699 Search PubMed.
- M. Thompson, B. Mertens, M. Kessler and T. Fearn, Analyst, 1993, 118, 235 RSC.
- P. Brereton, M. Hague and R. Wood, J. Assoc. Publ. Analysts, 1994, 30, 49 Search PubMed.
- F. Worner, A. Patey and R. Wood, J. Assoc. Publ. Analysts, 1992, 28, 1 Search PubMed.
- Analytical Methods Committee, Analyst, 1985, 110, 1019 Search PubMed.
- E. Florence and W. M. Harris, Analyst, 1987, 112, 317 RSC.
- B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York, USA, 1993 Search PubMed.
- B. D. Ripley and M. Thompson, Analyst, 1987, 112, 377 RSC.