Clarity discussion forum

Hello again,

during an installation of Clarity at the site of a very critical customer, we had some discussion about calibration reporting issues.
First, we could report the current calibration file by printing the "calculation parameters" in the method section of the report. But the problem is, what happens if, by accident or on purpose another calibration file is chosen for one or more chromatograms in a series. Then the report only gives me one calibration file which is certainly not the whole information and could lead to serious confusion. Is there a possibility to report the calibration file used for each chromatogram? Sometimes my customer is using a different calibration file for some samples in one sequence.
Second, wouldn't it be possible to report the calibration standard which is actually used in the calibration file? That would help to know if the correct standard chromatogram is used in the calibration file.
Thanks for your reply and help.

The solution depends from where and what you print. In case you print chromatogram from Chromatogram window or from postrun, the method parameters printed (including the calculation parameters with the referenced calibration file) are from the active chromatogram (not from the template method opened in Instrument window), thus will be relevant for the actually printed chromatogram. Besides, you can include the respective calibration file in the printout - the option Calibration History will give you details about the recalibrations including used standard file.

Thanks for your reply. The problem is the following: My customers want to have all the result tables one after another of the chromatograms in the sequence on one report (by results: print: result table: all signals). Certainly when in the Report Setup I chose "Method" and "Calculation Parameters" to include the calibration file I will have the name of the calibration file on the report. But I can never be sure that by accident e.g. one none-experienced coworker in the lab has changed the calibration file of e.g. one chromatogram in the series without wanting to do that, or can I really? In the "Report Setup" in the "Results" section there should be the possibility (e.g. by a simple tick box) to print the name of the calibration file corresponding to each chromatogram and therefore to each result table of that series, also in order to fulfill GLP requirements. Probably this sounds redundant to you but having the results on the report I have to prove that these results have been derived by the correct calibration file. I hope you could understand that in my eyes this point could become a major drawback for everybody who wants to have some kind of summary report of the analysed series and not doing a printing of each chromatogram.
Thanks for your reply on this very important point. I hope I could make myself clear.

Michael

It will be probably not a technical problem to add the calibration file name to the result table header in the report, but it will be just the name of the file, which could have been modified (recalibrated) in between. Similarly, wrong results could be derived from amending the integration table or changing some other parameters in the processing part of the method.

I am afraid that if you want to prove how the results were derived from the printed reports to be able to track all operator errors or mischieves, you must print practically everything (result table, method with integration table, used calibration with history, chromatogram audit trail) for each individual chromatogram.

Using different calibration file for samples processed by the same method in the same sequence is rather unusual approach, which will need to be well explained to the auditors.

Please note, reprocessing the chromatograms (or entire sequence) using the Reprocess by Instrument Method option by the Analysis, Batch will practically ensure, that all chromatograms have been integrated and evaluated identically.

A suggested approach to create a desired report:

Define a Summary report style including full method details, calibration table and history, Result table and eventually method audit trail. Set it as the report style in the Sequence table for the last line, leaving the others empty.

Create a reprocess method with integration parameters and calibration to suit all acquired chromatograms and open it on the instrument. Set the Analysis Batch reprocess for the sequence with options Reprocess by Instrument method, Open Chromatogram and Print Report.


The overlay mode in Chromatogram window should be ON and the Maximum chromatograms in overlay (Instrument window, View, Options should be greater then the number of chromatograms in sequence. Performing the Analysis, Batch, should print the report, you should probably accompany it with the session audit trail printout to document the report was really produced as described and individual chromatograms not amended manually in between.

That's exactly what I do: having 1 report for the whole series, with "Calibration parameters" and "Calibration History" as well as "Instrument Parameters" and "Calculation Parameters" and certainly a "Result Table" for "All" signals. Certainly only one calibration file is used for the whole sequence, the contrary wouldn't make sense. So with such a report I know the results of each analysis, I know which calibration standard is active in my calibration file and if I could now be sure that I have used the same calibration file for each chromatogram (and therefore for each result table) by (optionally) including the name of the calibration file in the header of each result table I would be quite sure that everything went well. It is much easier to know positively that everything has gone correctly than to be forced to search (negatively) in some audit trails for possible errors. But if I am the only person having the worry that this issue could lead by accident to false results in routine, especially because one can change the calibration file for each chromatogram separately in the corresponding chromatogram window, I have to accept your approach.

Best regards

Michael

As I have mentioned, it will not be a technical problem to include the calibration file name in the result table header (with or without option checkbox in the report setup), however it is just only one of many parameters, which could be modified in the individual chromatograms and will influence the results.

As we strive to keep the Clarity simple, we are hesitant to add new features and options if we are not sure they are really useful. Currently the result table header shows chromatgram name and calculation type, it may show warnings if set calculation could not be performed and also will show the intervals and values for drift and noise (when defined in the integration table). Adding other info will make it rather overcrowded.

Anyway, you could try to put your suggestion in the Wishlist section of this forum to see if it will get some support there.