True or not: uncertainty of laboratory results

Complete and informative reporting and interpretation can only lead to better decisions in healthcare Clinicians depend on reliable laboratory results as they are central to diagnosis, monitoring and risk assessment of patients. These results are then judged against the current evidence base, which arises from previously conducted studies, to assist decision making on future patient care. However, no single study is guaranteed to be both feasible and able to provide valid, informative and relevant answers with optimal precision to all study questions. The reliability of laboratory results depends heavily on accuracy, understood as a joint index of precision and trueness.1 Trueness is of particular importance for comparability of results as it allows the use of common reference intervals, treatment strategies and risk assessment tools. The true value is a value consistent with the definition of a given particular quantity obtained by a perfect measurement.2 Quantities are measured using procedures with different degrees of complexity. The measurement procedure needed to measure a particular quantity such as the “number of fingers on the hand of a given person” is very simple: counting by direct visual inspection is enough. In contrast, the measurement …

[1]  A. Y. Foo,et al.  Amylase Measurement—Which Method? , 1995, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[2]  W. Smellie,et al.  Impact of the new General Medical Services contract on the clinical laboratory , 2005, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[3]  W Greg Miller,et al.  Recommendations for improving serum creatinine measurement: a report from the Laboratory Working Group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  A. Wierzbicki,et al.  Chemical pathology and the new contract for GPs , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[5]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  D. Rennie Improving reports of studies of diagnostic tests: the STARD initiative. , 2003, JAMA.

[7]  David E Bruns,et al.  The STARD initiative and the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  M. Bissell Recommendations for Improving Serum Creatinine Measurement: A Report From the Laboratory Working Group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program , 2007 .

[9]  J. Ranson,et al.  Prognostic signs and nonoperative peritoneal lavage in acute pancreatitis. , 1976, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[10]  C. Price Improving the quality of peer reviewed literature on diagnostic tests: the STARD initiative. , 2003, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[11]  P. Twomey,et al.  Limitations of transferability of absolute cut-points in non-standardised assays , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[12]  Frank Buntinx,et al.  The evidence base of clinical diagnosis , 2008 .