Error analysis of measurement uncertainty: a snapshot literature review in field of medicine and health in China

To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure ( CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation. [GRAPHICS] .

Automated summary

The study analyzed common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field through literature research and comparison with national standards. Using the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure as the sample population, journal articles related to measurement uncertainty were analyzed and compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM. The study found explosive growth in academic attention to measurement uncertainty since 2005 and identified seven common errors with an overall error rate of 44%.