External quality assessment (EQA) is a commonly used tool to track the performance of laboratory tests. In Korea, EQA participation is not mandatory, and even basic data about EQA participation are not available. We used data of a 10-year period extracted from two databases (2009–2018): (1) the database of the National Health Insurance Service to calculate the number of medical institutions that claimed health insurance benefits, and (2) the database of the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service to calculate the number of medical institutions participating in EQA. The proportion of institutions that made claims for the performance of laboratory testing throughout the 10 years were 73.6%–76.0% for clinics, 91.9%–97.5% for long-term care hospitals, 97.9%–99.5% for small to medium hospitals, 99.6%–100% for general hospitals, and 100% for tertiary hospitals. The mean EQA participation rate of institutions that performed laboratory testing for the 10 years was 1.9% for clinics, 3.1% for long-term care hospitals, 27.7% for small to medium hospitals, 96.6% for general hospitals, and 100% for tertiary hospitals. The mean EQA participation of clinics, long-term care hospitals, and small to medium hospitals are increasing but is still not sufficient. Regulatory approaches are needed to increase participation rates. This result would be used for health policymaking on the quality improvement of laboratory tests.

Hyungsuk Kim, Hyun-Jung Jo, Sae-Rom Choi, Jun Nyun Kim, Sollip Kim, and Tae Hyun Um. KJBT 2016;27:155-63. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2016.27.2.155

Introduction. Genetic testing services for disease prediction, drug responses, and traits are commercially available by several companies in Korea. However, there has been no evaluation study for the accuracy and usefulness of these services. We aimed to compare two genetic testing services popular in Korea with 23andMe service in the United States.Materials and Methods. We compared the results of two persons (one man and one woman) serviced by Hellogene Platinum (Theragen Bio Institute), DNAGPS Optimus (DNAlink), and 23andMe service.Results. Among 3 services, there were differences in the estimation of relative risks for the same disease. For lung cancer, the range of relative risk was from 0.9 to 2.09. These differences were thought to be due to the differences of applied single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in each service for the calculation of risk. Also, the algorithm and population database would have influence on the estimation of relative disease risks. The concordance rate of SNP calls between DNAGPS Optimus and 23andMe services was 100% (30/30).Conclusions. Our study showed differences in disease risk estimations among three services, although they gave good concordance rate for SNP calls. We realized that the genetic services need further evaluation and standardization, especially in disease risk estimation algorithm.