This document is based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). This document summarizes proposals for recommendations on: (i) The terminology, which is often confusing, noticeably concerning the terms of reference limits and decision limits. (ii) The method for the determination of reference limits according to the original procedure and the conditions, which should be used. (iii) A simple procedure allowing the medical laboratories to fulfill the requirements of the regulation and standards. The updated document proposes to verify that published reference limits are applicable to the laboratory involved. Finally, the strengths and limits of the revised recommendations (especially the selection of the reference population, the maintenance of the analytical quality, the choice of the statistical method used…) will be briefly discussed.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming laboratory medicine, impacting medical devices and healthcare practices. Despite these advancements, AI-based medical device software (MDSW) introduces a new layer of complexity in regulatory compliance. This paper outlines the regulatory landscape for MDSW and AI-driven MDSW, clarifying the responsibilities of laboratory professionals and manufacturers under the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), ISO 15189:2022, and the Artificial Intelligence Act. An analysis of 89 MDSWs approved under the IVDR, derived from the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED) reveals a diverse landscape of applications, ranging from digital pathology and molecular diagnostics to laboratory automation and clinical decision support. While Germany currently dominates the EU market for these devices, and the majority of approved MDSW remain non-AI driven and classified as low-risk, the increasing presence of AI-powered Class C devices underscores the growing potential of software in complex diagnostic scenarios. However, realizing the full potential of AI in laboratory medicine requires careful navigation of the evolving regulatory landscape. Key challenges persist, including defining intended use, ensuring robust clinical evidence, mitigating data bias, and establishing rigorous post-market surveillance. Balancing regulatory oversight with innovation is critical to fostering the development of trustworthy AI systems without stifling progress. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, establishing clear validation methodologies and transparent compliance pathways will be essential to unlocking the full potential of AI in laboratory medicine while ensuring the highest standards of safety and clinical effectiveness.

Objectives: According to ISO 15189:2022, analytical performance specifications (APS) should relate to intended clinical use and impact on patient care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web application for laboratory professionals to calculate APS based on a simulation of the impact of measurement uncertainty (MU) on the outcome using the chosen decision limits, agreement thresholds, and data of the population of interest. Methods: We developed the “APS Calculator” allowing users to upload and select data of concern, specify decision limits and agreement thresholds, and conduct simulations to determine APS for MU. The simulation involved categorizing original measurand concentrations, generating measured (simulated) results by introducing different degrees of MU, and recategorizing measured concentrations based on clinical decision limits and acceptable clinical misclassification rates. The agreements between original and simulated result categories were assessed, and values that met or exceeded user-specified agreement thresholds that set goals for the between-category agreement were considered acceptable. The application generates contour plots of agreement rates and corresponding MU values. We tested the application using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, with decision limits from relevant guidelines. Results: We determined APS for MU of six measurands (blood total hemoglobin, plasma fasting glucose, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total folate) to demonstrate the potential of the application to generate APS. Conclusions: The developed data-driven web application offers a flexible tool for laboratory professionals to calculate APS for MU using their chosen decision limits and agreement thresholds, and the data of the population of interest.

Accreditation is a valuable resource for medical laboratories. The development of quality systems based on ISO 15189 has taken place in many laboratories in the European countries but data about accreditation remain scarce. The EFLM Working Group “Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards” conducted a survey that reviews the current state of the accreditation process in European countries.An on-line questionnaire was addressed to delegates of 39 EFLM scientific societies in March 2014. One answer by country was taken into account. The survey was dealing with mandatory status, number of accredited medical laboratories in each country, possibility of flexible scope and concerned medical fields. The status of point-of-care testing (POCT) in each country was also studied.Twenty-nine responses (74%) were registered. All the assessed countries (100%) have begun an accreditation process in various ways. All the national accreditation bodies (NAB) offer or are working to offer an ISO 15189 accreditation. The accreditation process most often concerns all phases of the examination and various medical fields. Medical laboratories are responsible for POCT in 20 (69%) countries. The accreditation process for POCT, according to ISO 15189 and ISO 22870, is also developing.While there are several variations in the approaches to accreditation of medical laboratories in the European countries, the ISO 15189 accreditation project has been widely accepted. The use of a unique standard and the cooperation among countries due to scientific societies, EFLM, accreditation bodies and EA enable laboratory professionals to move toward uniform implementation of the accreditation concept.

This paper reflects the opinion of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO). It aims to provide guidance for drawing up local/national documents about validation and verification of laboratory methods. We demonstrate how risk evaluation can be used to optimize laboratory policies to meet intended use requirements as well as requirements of standards. This is translated in a number of recommendations on how to introduce risk evaluation in various stages of the implementation of new methods ultimately covering the whole process cycle.