The NEXUS vision: An alternative to the reference value concept

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 42, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 868-873

  Goldschmidt, Henk M J ^a,b  

^a Reg Diagn Services Center Tilburg   (Netherlands)

^b Delta Psychiatrisch Ziekenhuis   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Error budget; Interpretative reporting; Patient physician relationship; Postanalytical phase; Reference value alternative

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; INFORMATION SYSTEM; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY TEST; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUES;

EID: 4344647025     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2004.142.1     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Lundberg GD. Acting on significant laboratory results [editorial]. J Am Med Assoc 1981;245:1763.
2. Galen RS, Gambino SR. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. New York: Wiley & Sons Press, 1975.
3. Truchaud A, Le Neel T, Brochard H, Malvaux S, Moyon M, Cazaubiel M. New tools for laboratory design and management. Clin Chem 1997;43:1709-15.
4. Stroobants AK, Goldschmidt HMJ, Plebani M. Error budget calculations in laboratory medicine: linking the concepts of biological variation and allowable medical errors. Clin Chim Acta 2003;333:169-76.
5. Goldschmidt HMJ, Lent RW. From data to information: how to define the context? Chemom Intell Lab Systems 1995;28:181-92.
6. Kallner A. Uncertainty in measurement, introduction and examples. eJIFCC; vol 13 no 1: http://www.ifcc.org/ejifcc/vol13no1/1301200103.htm
7. Young DS. Effects of preanalytical variables om clinical laboratory tests. Washington: AACC Press, 1993.
8. Noe DA. The logic of laboratory medicine. Baltimore, Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg Press, 1985.
9. Fraser CG. Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington: AACC Press, 2001.
10. Goldschmidt HMJ. Post-analytical factors and their influence on analytical quality specifications. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:551-4.
11. Goldschmidt H, Libeer J-C, De Bièvre P, Schimmel H, Hyltoft Petersen P. How far can the concepts of traceability and GUM/VIM can be applied to measurement results in laboratory medicine? J Accred Qual Assurance 2004;9:125-7.
12. Frize M, Trigge HCE, Solven FG, Stevenson M, Nickerson BG. Decision-support systems designed for critical care. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Conference, Nashville, Oct 25-30, 1997.
13. Moons KGM, Biesheuvel CJ, Grobbee DE. Test research versus diagnostic research. Clin Chem 2004;50:473-6.
14. Oosterhuis WP, Bruns DE, Watine J, Sandberg S, Horvath AR. Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: principles and methods. Clin Chem 2004;50:806-18.
15. Duijn NP. Predictive values instead of normal ranges: clinical chemists support decision making in primary care. Ned Tijdschr Klin Chem 2001;26:249-52.