Interlaboratory variability in assessment of the model of end-stage liver disease score

Liver International

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1344-1351

  Lisman, Ton ^a   Van Leeuwen, Yvonne ^b   Adelmeijer, Jelle ^a   Pereboom, Ilona T A ^a   Haagsma, Elizabeth B ^c   Van Den Berg, Arie P ^c   Porte, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bilirubin; Creatinin; Liver transplantation; Prioritization; Prothrombin time INR

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; BILIRUBIN; COUMARIN; CREATININE;

ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY; ARTICLE; BILIRUBIN BLOOD LEVEL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL LABORATORY; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERLABORATORY VARIATION; INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO; LIVER DISEASE; MALE; MELD SCORE; MODEL OF END STAGE LIVER DISEASE SCORE; SCORING SYSTEM;

BILIRUBIN; CREATININE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EUROPE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO; LABORATORIES; LIVER FAILURE, ACUTE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 54049100776     PISSN: 14783223     EISSN: 14783231     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2008.01783.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Trotter JF, Brimhall B, Arjal R, Phillips C. Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 995-1000.
2. Trotter JF, Olson J, Lefkowitz J, Smith AD, Arjal R, Kenison J. Changes in international normalized ratio (INR) and model for endstage liver disease (MELD) based on selection of clinical laboratory. Am J Transpl 2007; 7: 1624-8.
3. Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Kerry A, et al. Different methods of creatinine measurement significantly affect MELD scores. Liver Transpl 2007; 13: 523-9.
4. Robert A, Chazouilleres O. Prothrombin time in liver failure: Time, ratio, activity percentage, or international normalized ratio? Hepatology 1996; 24: 1392-4.
5. Kovacs MJ, Wong A, MacKinnon K, et al. Assessment of the validity of the INR system for patients with liver impairment. Thromb Haemost 1994; 71: 727-30.
6. Lisman T, Porte RJ, Leebeek FW, Caldwell SH. Methodological issues with coagulation testing in patients with liver disease. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 2061-2.
7. Tripodi A, Chantarangkul V, Primignani M, et al. The international normalized ratio calibrated for cirrhosis (INR(liver)) normalizes prothrombin time results for model for end-stage liver disease calculation. Hepatology 2007; 46: 520-7.
8. Bellest L, Eschwege V, Poupon R, Chazouilleres O, Robert A. A modified international normalized ratio as an effective way of prothrombin time standardization in hepatology. Hepatology 2007; 46: 528-34.
9. Tripodi A, Chantarangkul V, Mannucci PM. The international normalized ratio to prioritize patients for liver transplantation. Problems and possible solutions. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 243-8.
10. Horsti J, Uppa H, Vilpo JA. Poor agreement among prothrombin time international normalized ratio methods: Comparison of seven commercial reagents. Clin Chem 2005; 51: 553-60.
11. Horsti J. Comparison of quick and owren prothrombin time with regard to the harmonisation of the International Normalised Ratio (INR) system. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002; 40: 399-403.