|
Be an
Educated User: Comparing Systems and Cutting Through All of the Hype
Source: Alexeter Technologies.
11.01.02 |
An Alexeter Response to competitors' claims...
1
|
Which
System? Field Performance
- the Ultimate Judge of Accuracy.
Although laboratory results are important for predicting the performance of
equipment in the field, experienced equipment manufacturers know that until
their new equipment is tested in the field under real conditions, system
accuracy, and ultimately the utility (usability) of cannot be reliably
estimated. Critical beta
field-testing typically uncovers design flaws or shortcomings not anticipated by
system developers.
Because
of this, anyone considering purchase of new equipment should examine both the
laboratory and the field data results from manufacturers before making
decisions. Performance claims from
manufacturers based solely on laboratory results or meager field tests do not
always reflect the expected performance of equipment under “real world”
conditions. In the case of the
Alexeter’s Guardian Reader System, our field data surveys from use over the
last several years indicate a false-positive rate of less than 0.2% under
“real-world” conditions.
Although
individual user results may vary, our exceptional field performance is due in no
small part to our focused efforts to design and develop equipment specifically
for biological field-testing. Unlike
some competitive systems that are simply medical laboratory devices hastily
retrofitted for field use after last September 11th, the
Guardian Reader System and Tetracore’s BioThreat
Alert Tests were designed specifically for use by first responders in the
field. Extensive beta field-testing prior to market release, with 8 different
HAZMAT teams, proved that our system delivers optimal performance for the first
responder.
2
| Apples
vs. Oranges?
Confusion over Sensitivity.
Since competing test devices often require different sample volumes, sensitivity
levels for analytical detectors or laboratory devices are typically compared by
minimum detectable concentration, e.g. parts per billion (ppb), grams/
milliliter (g/ml), etc. The total
amount of a test substance, i.e., “anthrax spores”, does not allow for an
accurate comparison of one device to another any more than claiming you are rich
because you earned $100,000. Was
the $100,000 earned in one day or 10 years?
The “concentration” makes a big difference.
As
demonstrated in Table I below, a claim of having a device that can detect 4000
spores (Product 1) is misleading if the volume for the test is not defined.
If Product 1 requires 4,000 spores in a 0.040 ml Sample Volume and
Product 2 requires 12,000 spores in a 0.120 ml Sample Volume, Product 1 and
Product 2 actually have the same sensitivity of 100,000 spores per milliliter of
test solution.
Continue (Page 2) >
|
BE
AN EDUCATED USER
| In response to
numerous dubious claims being made by competitors in
the biological threat test [field, we] would like to
clear up some confusion.