This is a correction of Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2025;35(3):030704. DOI:https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2025.030704.
Since the publication of the article, the authors have noticed an error in the calculation of the sigma metric. The corrected calculations are presented below. We apologize to the readers for any inconvenience this error may have caused.
During a post-publication review of the calculations, an error was identified in the formula used for the calculation of the sigma metric. Specifically, the calculations were performed without considering the absolute value in the formula: Sigma (σ) = (TEa − |SE|) / CV (where TEa represents the allowable total error, SE the systematic error and CV the coefficient of variation).
Consequently, the sigma values reported for the evaluated parameters were affected. After identifying this issue, the sigma metrics were recalculated using the correct formula including the absolute value of SE. Subsequently, all related analyses and procedures based on these sigma values were repeated using the corrected calculations.
All corrections are underlined to facilitate identification of the changes from the previously published version.
Corrections in the Abstract
Results: Additionally, to streamline management, the QCP covering the greatest number of parameters per analyzer was prioritized, which ultimately resulted in the adoption of only three general QCP. Only 4 individualized QCP were required to cover 9 parameters with lower sigma values.
Corrections in the Methods section
For each quality control level in each analyzer, the sigma value was calculated using the equation: Sigma (σ) = (TEa - |SE|) / CV.
Corrections in the Results section
The mean sigma values obtained for each parameter in each of the analyzers are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. All Alinity systems showed 9 to 14 parameters with sigma values ≥ 6, 4 to 8 parameters with sigma between 5 and 6, 3 to 5 parameters with sigma between 4 and 5 and up to 2 parameters with sigma < 4.
This resulted in the adoption of only three QC plans (QCP 1, 2 and 3) out of the seven initially defined. As shown in Table 8, only nine parameters with lower sigma values required individualized QC plans due to their need for stricter QC rules. These nine parameters were effectively covered by four individual QCPs.
Corrections in the Discussion section
Second, for measurement procedures with sigma values between 4.65 and 6, QC rules can be selected based on the desired run size, while maintaining an acceptable Max E(Nuf). For measurement procedures with sigma values between 4 and 4.65, achieving an acceptable Max E(Nuf) requires applying more complex QC rules, such as multiple control rules 13s/22s/R4s/41s (MR N4), in the “startup” stage to reach an appropriate Ped, regardless of the desired run size.