An appeal to medical journal editors: The need for a full description of laboratory methods and specimen handling in clinical study reports

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 411-413

  Rifai, Nader ^a   Annesley, Thomas M ^a   Berg, Jens P ^b   Brugnara, Carlo ^c   Delvin, Edgard ^c   Lamb, Edmund J ^c   Ness, Paul M ^c   Plebani, Mario ^d   Wick, Mark R ^c   Wu, Alan ^e   Delanghe, Joris ^e  

^a Clinical Chemistry   (United States)

^b Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation   (United States)

^c American Journal of Hematology ^*  (United States)

^d Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine   (United States)

^e Clinica Chimica Acta   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; C REACTIVE PROTEIN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TROPONIN I; TROPONIN T;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER RISK; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; LABORATORY DEVICE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; PROSTATITIS; REFERENCE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION; STORAGE;

CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; RESEARCH REPORT; SOCIETIES; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TROPONIN I;

EID: 84860490669     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2011-0904     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7-18. (Pubitemid 36078547)
2. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, and for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1180-4. (Pubitemid 41258223)
3. Smidt N, Overbeke J, de Vet H, Bossuyt P. Endorsement of the STARD statement by biomedical journals: survey of instructions for authors. Clin Chem 2007;53:1983-5. (Pubitemid 350036050)
4. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, on behalf of the Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Redefi nition of Myocardial Infarction. Universal defi nition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007;28:2525-38. (Pubitemid 47616190)
5. Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Jesse RL, Newby LK, Ravkilde J, Storrow AB, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: clinical characteristics and utilization of biochemical markers in acute coronary syndromes. Clin Chem 2007;53:552-74. (Pubitemid 46580223)
6. Apple FS. A new season for cardiac troponin assays: It's time to keep a scorecard. Clin Chem 2009;55:1303-6.
7. Apple FS, Collinson PO, for the IFCC Task Force on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Biomarkers. Analytical characteristics of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays. Clin Chem 2012;58: 54-61.
8. Apple FS. Standardization of cardiac troponin I assays will not occur in my lifetime. Clin Chem 2012;58:169-71.
9. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specifi c antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc 1998;279:1542-7. (Pubitemid 28233009)
10. Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Walz J, Kattan MW, Huland H, et al. A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artifi cial neural networks, classifi cation and regression- tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratifi cation models for prostate cancer. Br J Urol Int 2007;99:794-800. (Pubitemid 46439569)
11. Stephan C, Klaas M, Müller C, Schnorr D, Loening SA, Jung K. Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostatespecifi c antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem 2006;52:59-64.
12. Stephan C, Siemßen K, Cammann H, Friedersdorf F, Deger S, Schrader M, et al. Between-method differences in prostatespecifi c antigen assays affect prostate cancer risk prediction by nomograms. Clin Chem 2011;57:995-1004.
13. Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A, Gallina A, Hopp J, Kattan MW, et al. Initial biopsy outcome prediction-head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artifi cial neural network. Eur Urol 2007;51:1236-43. (Pubitemid 46436287)
14. Stephan C, Meyer HA, Cammann H, Lein M, Loening SA, Jung K. Initial biopsy outcome prediction-head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artifi cial neural network. Eur Urol 2007;51:1236-43.