Publications

Articles

  1. Jan S. Krouwer and Bernard M. Babior: The Mechanism of Action of Ethanolamine Ammonia-Lyase. Reaction of a Postulated Organocorrin Intermediate with Enzyme, J. Biol. Chem., 252, 5004-5009 (1977).
  2. Jan S. Krouwer, Richard M. Schultz, and Bernard M. Babior: Aminoacetaldehyde, a Substrate Analog for Ethanolamine Ammonia-Lyase, a B12-dependent Enzyme, J. Biol. Chem., 253, 1041-1047 (1978).
  3. Jan S. Krouwer and Joe P. Richmond: The Synthesis and Reactions of Enamine N-oxides, J. Org. Chem., 43, 2464-2466 (1978).
  4. Jan S. Krouwer, Barton Holmquist,RubyS. Kipnes, and Bernard M. Babior: The Mechanism of Action of Ethanolamine Ammonia-Lyase, an Adenosylcobalamin-dependent Enzyme. Evidence that Carbon-Cobalt Bond Cleavage is Driven in Part by Conformational Alternations of the Corrin Ring, Biochim. Biophys Acta, 612, 153-159 (1980).
  5. Steven W. Graves, Jan S. Krouwer, and Bernard M. Babior: The Mechanism of Ethanolamine Ammonia-Lyase, an AdoCbl-dependent Enzyme. Studies with Isopropanolamine, A Substrate for the Enzyme. J. Biol. Chem., 255, 7444-7448 (1980).
  6. Jan S. Krouwer and Robin Rabinowitz: How to Improve Estimates of Imprecision, Clin. Chem., 30, 290-292 (1984).
  7. Patricia E. Garrett and Jan S. Krouwer: Method Evaluation II: Precision and Sensitivity Considerations: J. of Clinical Immunoassay, 8, 165-168 (1985).
  8. Jan S. Krouwer: Improving the Reporting of Immunoassay Specificity, Clin. Chem., 32, 1980 (1986).
  9. Jan S. Krouwer: Cumulative Distribution Analysis Graphs – An Alternative to ROC Curves, Clin. Chem., 33, 2305-6 (1987).
  10. Jan S. Krouwer, William N. Stewart, and Brian Schlain: A Multi-factor Design for the Evaluation of Random Access Analyzers, Clin. Chem., 34, 1894-6 (1988).
  11. Brian Schlain and Jan S. Krouwer: Multi-factor Designs II. A Design for Identifying Instruments with Sample-to-sample Carryover and Drift. Clin. Chem., 35, 2118-2120 (1989)
  12. Jan S. Krouwer: Multi-Factor Designs IV. How Multi-factor Designs Improve the Estimate of Total Error by Accounting for Protocol Specific Bias. Chem. Chem., 37, 26-29 (1991).
  13. Jan S. Krouwer: Estimating Total Analytical Error and Its Sources: Techniques to Improve Method Evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med., 116, 726-731 (1992).
  14. Jan S. Krouwer and Brian Schlain: A Method to Quantify Deviations From Nonlinearity. Clin. Chem., 39, 1689-93, (1993).
  15. Jan S. Krouwer and Katherine L Monti: A Simple Graphical Method to Evaluate Laboratory Assays, Eur. J. Clin. Chem. and Clin. Biochem., 33, 525-527 (1995).
  16. Jan S. Krouwer: Beware the Percent Completion Metric. Research Technology Management, 41, 13-15, (1998).
  17. Jan S. Krouwer: Evaluation of Assay Systems. Clin. Chem. News, 27, 10-14 March 2001
  18. Jan S. Krouwer: Setting Performance Goals and Evaluating Total Analytical Error for Diagnostic Assays. Clin. Chem., 48: 919-927 (2002).
  19. Jan S. Krouwer: Using a Learning Curve Approach to Reduce Laboratory Error. Accred. Qual. Assur. 7 461-467 (2002).
  20. Jan S. Krouwer: A Critique of the GUM Method of Estimating and Reporting Uncertainty in Diagnostic Assays Clin. Chem., 49:1818-1821 (2003)
  21. Jan S. Krouwer: ISO 9001 has had no effect on quality in the in-vitromedical diagnostics industry. Accred. Qual. Assur., 9: 39-43 (2004).
  22. Jan S. Krouwer: An improved FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) for Hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 128: 663-667 (2004).
  23. Recommendation to treat continuous variable errors like attribute errors. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2006;44(7):797–798
  24. Jan S. Krouwer: FDA’s new proposed waiver application guideline – how it differs from previous performance evaluations. IVD Technology 2006; 12;24-31
  25. Jan S. Krouwer: Dynamic rather than static performance measures are needed to improve patient safety Accred. Qual. Assur. 2006;11:644-646.
  26. Jan S. Krouwer: How clinical laboratories can evaluate false positives and false negatives. Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology 2008;7:16-18.
  27. Jans S. Krouwer: Ten tips to improve risk assessment. IVD Technology, 2008; 14:16-23.
  28. Jan S. Krouwer: Six Sigma can be dangerous to your health. Accred Qual Assur 2009; 14:49-52.
  29. Jan S. Krouwer and George S. Cembrowski A review of standards and statistics used to describe blood glucose monitor performance. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2010;4:75-83.
  30. Jans S. Krouwer: Why manufacturers should embrace error grids. IVD Technology, 2010; 16:18-21. http://www.ivdtechnology.com/article/why-manufacturers-should-embrace-error-grids.
  31. Jan S. Krouwer and George S. Cembrowski. Towards more complete specifications for acceptable analytical performance – a plea for error grid analysis. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2011;49:1127-1130.
  32. Jan S. Krouwer: A Widespread Myth About Point-of-Care Devices Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology 2011;10:146-147.
  33. Jan S. Krouwer: Analysis of the Performance of the OneTouch SelectSimple Blood Glucose Monitoring System: Why Ease of Use Studies Need to Be Part of Accuracy Studies. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2011;5:610-611.
  34. Jan S. Krouwer: Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of the Coulometry-Based Optium Omega Blood Glucose Meter: What Do Such Evaluations Show? Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2011;5:618-620.
  35. Jan S Krouwer: Interference Testing: Why Following Standards Is Not Always the Right Thing to Do. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2012;6:1182–1184.
  36. Jan S Krouwer: Why specifications for allowable glucose meter errors should include 100% of the data. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2013;51:1543-1544.
  37. Jan S Krouwer: The new glucose standard POCT12-A3 misses the mark. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, September 2013;7:1400–1402.

  38. Jan S Krouwer: The danger of using total error models to compare glucose meter performance. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2014;8:419-421.
  39. Jan S Krouwer and George S. Cembrowski: The chronic injury glucose error grid. A tool to reduce diabetes complications. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2015;9:149-152.
  40. Jan S Krouwer: Biases in clinical trials performed for regulatory approval, Accred Qual Assur, 2015;20:437-439.
  41. Jan S Krouwer: Improving the Glucose Meter Error Grid With the Taguchi Loss Function Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2016;10:967-970.
  42. Jan S Krouwer: The problem with total error models in establishing performance specifications and a simple remedy. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2016;54:1299-1301.
  43. Jan S Krouwer: Analysis of “Seven Year Surveillance of the Clinical Performance of a Blood Glucose Test-Strip Product” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2017;11:1163-1164.
  44. Jan S Krouwer: Why the Diabetes Technology Society Surveillance Protocol for Glucose Meters Needs to be Revised. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2017;11:1247-1249.
  45. Jan S. Krouwer: Interferences, a neglected error source. Accred. Qual. Assur. 2018;23(3):189-192.
  46. Jan S. Krouwer: Why the Details of Glucose Meter Evaluations Matters Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, in press and online.
  47. Jan S. Krouwer: Reducing Glucose Meter Adverse Events by Using Reliability Growth With the FDA MAUDE Database Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, in press and online.
  48. Jan S. Krouwer and Patricia E. Garrett Getting more information from glucose meter evaluations  Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, in press.

Letters

  1. Jan S. Krouwer: Observations on Comparisons of Within-Run and Day-to-Day Precision, Clin. Chem., 27, 202 (1981), Clin. Chem., 27, 629, (1981) Publisher correction.
  2. Jan S. Krouwer and William N. Stewart: Correction of Precision Equations in NCCLS EP5-T, (Letter) Clin. Chem., 33, 1104 (1987).
  3. Jan S. Krouwer: The CV at The Detection Limit, (Letter) Clin. Chem., 35, 901 (1989).
  4. Brian Schlain and Jan S. Krouwer: Reply to Letter to Editor about: A Method to Quantify Deviations From Nonlinearity. Clin. Chem., 39, 1689-93, (1993), Clin. Chem., 40, 1785-6 (1994).
  5. Jan S. Krouwer and Katherine L. Monti: A Modification of EP10 to Include Interference Screening,. Clin. Chem., 41, 325-6 (1995).
  6. Jan S. Krouwer: How to Improve Total Error Modeling by Accounting for Error Sources Beyond Imprecision and Bias, Clin. Chem., 47, 1329-30 (2001).
  7. Jan S. Krouwer: Proposal to add an optional Recommendations section to Clinical Chemistry Abstracts. Clin. Chem., 48, 2292 (2002).
  8. Jan S. Krouwer: Certification is important – modeling andmeasurement are more important. Accred Qual Assur, 8, 368 (2003).
  9. Jan S. Krouwer: Problems with the NCEP (National Cholesterol Education Program) Recommendations for Cholesterol Analytical Performance. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127, 1249 (2003).
  10. Jan S. Krouwer: There is nothing wrong with the concept of a root cause. Int J Qual Health Care 2004 16: 263.
  11. Jan S. Krouwer Uncertainty intervals based on deleting data are not useful. Clinical Chemistry 2006;52:1204-1205.
  12. Jan S. Krouwer: More on Reporting Medical Errors Clin. Chem. 2006;52:2120.
  13. Jan S. Krouwer: Comments on the editorial “On quality of a measurement result” Accred Qual Assur, 2007;12:263-264.
  14. Jan S. Krouwer: A recommended improvement for specifying and estimating creatinine performance. Clinical Chemistry 2007; 53:1715-1716.
  15. Jan S. Krouwer: Why Bland-Altman plots should use X, not (Y+X)/2 when X is a reference method. Statistics in Medicine, 2008;27:778-780.
  16. Wrong thinking about glucose standards. Clin Chem, 2010;56:874-875.
  17. Jan S. Krouwer: Simulating Total Error While Excluding Results Underestimates Total Error
    Clinical Chemistry 2010;56:1505-1506.
  18. Jan S. Krouwer and George S. Cembrowski: Acute Versus Chronic Injury in Error Grids. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2014;8:1057.
  19. Jan S. Krouwer: Using the wrong model can lead to unsupported conclusions about glucose meters. Clinical Chemistry, 2015;61:666.
  20. Jan S. Krouwer: Why the New FDA Glucose Meter POCT Guidance Is Disappointing. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2017;11:1274-1274.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: