Abstract
The uncertainty of a numerical laboratory result can be masked by the fact that the laboratory reports an absolute number, whereas users have limited knowledge of the confidence interval of the result. Interpretation of laboratory tests is in reality therefore an inexact science, a balance between clinical context and the likely relevance of a laboratory result.This review considers the factors which contribute to result variability and examines the implications for interpreting differences between sequential laboratory results. It offers suggestions to deal with a problem which has not yet been much addressed in routine practice. The examples used are restricted to the discipline of clinical biochemistry, although the issues and principles apply to numerical (and indeed qualitative) results in other disciplines.Laboratories could provide more guidance on the likelihood of a result being significant to assist users. There is a need for discussion about how this is best done, and compatible with electronic result delivery. Options for providing this information are considered.
Subject
General Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference45 articles.
1. Renal Association. Chronic kidney disease in adults: UK Guidelines for Identification, Management and Referral. http://www.renal.org/CKDguide/full/UKCKDfull.pdf (accessed 25 June 2007).
2. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. UK consensus conference on early chronic kidney disease. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 2007.
3. Fraser CG . Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington DC: AACC Press, 2001:151.
4. Effects of intra and interindividual variation on the appropriate use of normal intervals.;Harris;Clin Chem,1974
5. Inherent biological variation and reference values
Cited by
29 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献