Quantity quotient reporting. A proposal for a standardized presentation of laboratory results

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 47, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1203-1206

  Haeckel, Rainer ^a,c   Wosniok, Werner ^b  

^a KLINIKUM BREMEN MITTE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Critical difference; Quantity quotient reporting; Reference change value; Standardized reporting of laboratory results

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL LABORATORY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REFERENCE VALUE; REVIEW; RISK; STANDARDIZATION;

ARTIFACTS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 70349845766     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.290     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Arzideh F. Proposed classification of various limit values (guide values) used in assisting the interpretation of quantitative laboratory test results. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:494-497
2. Acland JD, Lipton S. Precision in a clinical chemistry laboratory. J Clin Path 1967;20:780-785
3. Gaddum JH. Lognormal distributions. Nature 1945;156: 463-466
4. Kairisto V, Poola A. Software for illustrative presentation of basic clinical characteristics of laboratory tests - GraphROC for Windows. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1995; 55(Suppl 222):43-60.
5. Thomas L. Labor und Diagnose, 5th ed. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: TH-Books Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1998.
6. Web page of the Nordic Reference Interval Project (NORIP) on the Internet: http://wwww.furst.no/norip. Accessed 9/30/2003.
7. Arzideh F, Gurr E. Personal communication.
8. Stamm D. A new concept for quality control of clinical laboratory investigations in the light of clinical requirements and based on reference method values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1982;20:817-824
9. Fraser CG. Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington: AACC Press, 2001:1-151.
10. Flores E, Leiva M, Leiva-Salinas C, Salinas M. The degree of knowledge shown by physicians in relation to the variability of laboratory test results. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:381-382
11. Garcia-Panyella M, Padro-Miquel A, Dot-Bach D, Fuentes- Arderiu X. Pre-analytical variation of some haematological quantities. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1168-1170
12. Ricos C. www.westgard.com/guest17.htm.
13. Badrick T, Wilson SR, Dimeski G, Hickman PE. Objective determination of appropriate reporting intervals. Ann Clin Biochem 2004;41:385-390
14. Hawkins RC. SI or non-SI units - which better match dayto- day imprecision? Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1336-1338
15. Glick JH. Expression of random analytical error as a percentage of the range of clinical interest. Clin Chem 1976;22:475-483
16. Plebani M. Interpretative commenting: a tool for improving the laboratory-clinical interface. Clin Chim Acta 2009; doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.03. 012.
17. Arzideh F, Wosniok W, Gurr E, Hinsch W, Schumann G, Weinstock N, et al. A plea for intra-laboratory reference limits. Part 2. A bimodal retrospective concept for determining reference limits from intra-laboratory data bases demonstrated by catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1043-1057
18. CLSI. Defining, establishing, and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved guideline, 3rd ed. CLSI document C28-P3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008;28:1-50.