Interlaboratory

The analysis of foraminifera suggests an interlaboratory variance of about ±8% %RSD for Mg/Ca measurements, which translates to reproducibility of about ±2–3deg C. ❋ Unknown (2006)

Even more importantly, the results of this study highlight the need for standards calibration among laboratories as a first step toward improving interlaboratory compatibility. ❋ Unknown (2006)

In June 2009 OLFAtec, Germany again organised the international interlaboratory comparison. ❋ Unknown (2010)

MLST, which is based on the DNA sequence analysis of 7 house keeping genes, yields unambiguous typing results that are suited for interlaboratory comparisons. ❋ Unknown (2009)

In conclusion, the MLVA described in this study is a high throughput, relatively low cost genotyping method that yields unambiguous data that can be used for interlaboratory comparisons and for internet accessible databases. ❋ Unknown (2009)

S. aureus that yields discrete and unambiguous data that can be used to assign biological meaningful genotypes and complexes and can be used for interlaboratory comparisons in network accessible databases. ❋ Unknown (2009)

However, the major disadvantage of PFGE is its low portability making it unsuitable for interlaboratory comparisons. ❋ Unknown (2009)

This project deals with designing and organising interlaboratory comparisons (ILC) to support environmental or food applications, as well as training / education in this context. ❋ Unknown (2009)

These methods have been subjected to rigorous validation studies and interlaboratory collaborative testing and can thus be considered reliable. ❋ Unknown (2009)

This approach accurately adjusts dilution series of reference DNA of different viral types relative to pUC18, which is crucial for comparative analyses and for interlaboratory standardization. ❋ Sönke J Weissenborn (2009)