LabRS: A Rosetta stone for retrospective standardization of clinical laboratory test results

Author:

Hauser Ronald George12,Quine Douglas B13,Ryder Alex45

Affiliation:

1. Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA

2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

3. Main Laboratory, Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT, USA

4. Children’s Foundation Research Institute, Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

5. Department of Pediatrics and Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Abstract

Abstract Objective Clinical laboratories in the United States do not have an explicit result standard to report the 7 billion laboratory tests results they produce each year. The absence of standardized test results creates inefficiencies and ambiguities for secondary data users. We developed and tested a tool to standardize the results of laboratory tests in a large, multicenter clinical data warehouse. Methods Laboratory records, each of which consisted of a laboratory result and a test identifier, from 27 diverse facilities were captured from 2000 through 2015. Each record underwent a standardization process to convert the original result into a format amenable to secondary data analysis. The standardization process included the correction of typos, normalization of categorical results, separation of inequalities from numbers, and conversion of numbers represented by words (eg, “million”) to numerals. Quality control included expert review. Results We obtained 1.266 × 109 laboratory records and standardized 1.252 × 109 records (98.9%). Of the unique unstandardized records (78.887 × 103), most appeared <5 times (96%, eg, typos), did not have a test identifier (47%), or belonged to an esoteric test with <100 results (2%). Overall, these 3 reasons accounted for nearly all unstandardized results (98%). Conclusion Current results suggest that the tool is both scalable and generalizable among diverse clinical laboratories. Based on observed trends, the tool will require ongoing maintenance to stay current with new tests and result formats. Future work to develop and implement an explicit standard for test results would reduce the need to retrospectively standardize test results.

Funder

US Department of Veterans Affairs

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Informatics

Reference17 articles.

1. Adding outcome as the 10th step in the brain-to-brain laboratory test loop;Lundberg;Am J Clin Pathol.,2014

2. Do we now know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? An expanded systematic review of laboratory clinical audits;Hauser;Am J Clin Pathol.,2014

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA): CLIA Laws and Regulations. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/clia/regulatory/default.aspx. Accessed September 22, 2016.

4. One size does not fit all: interpreting laboratory data in pediatric patients;Gillespie;AMIA Annu Symp Proc.,2003

5. Issues in the Standardization of Clinical Laboratory Results;McDonald;CLIAC.,2013

Cited by 16 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3