TY - JOUR
T1 - Interpreting changes in consecutive laboratory results
T2 - clinician's perspectives on clinically significant change
AU - Kim, Soo Kyung
AU - Chung, Jae Woo
AU - Lim, Jinsook
AU - Jeong, Tae Dong
AU - Chang, Jeonghyun
AU - Seo, Meewon
AU - Lim, Hwan Sub
AU - Kim, Sollip
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2023/8/1
Y1 - 2023/8/1
N2 - Background: Clinical laboratory tests are inevitably affected by various factors. Therefore, when comparing consecutive test results, it is crucial to consider the inherent uncertainty of the test. Clinical laboratories use reference change value (RCV) to determine a significant change between 2 results. Whereas the criteria for the interpretation of consecutive results by clinicians are not well known. We investigated the clinician's interpretation of a clinically significant change in consecutive laboratory test results and compared them to RCV. Methods: We performed a questionnaire survey on clinicians, which comprised 2 scenarios with 22 laboratory test items suggesting initial test results. Clinicians were asked to choose a result showing clinically significant change. RCV of the analytes from EFLM database were collected. Results: We received 290 valid questionnaire responses. Clinicians’ opinions on clinically significant change was inconsistent between clinicians and scenarios, and was generally larger than RCV. Clinicians commented that they were not familiar with the variability of the laboratory tests. Conclusions: Clinicians' opinions on clinically significant changes were more prominent than RCV. Meanwhile, they tended to neglect the analytical and biological variation. Laboratories should properly guide clinicians on the RCV of tests for better decision-making on patients’ clinical states.
AB - Background: Clinical laboratory tests are inevitably affected by various factors. Therefore, when comparing consecutive test results, it is crucial to consider the inherent uncertainty of the test. Clinical laboratories use reference change value (RCV) to determine a significant change between 2 results. Whereas the criteria for the interpretation of consecutive results by clinicians are not well known. We investigated the clinician's interpretation of a clinically significant change in consecutive laboratory test results and compared them to RCV. Methods: We performed a questionnaire survey on clinicians, which comprised 2 scenarios with 22 laboratory test items suggesting initial test results. Clinicians were asked to choose a result showing clinically significant change. RCV of the analytes from EFLM database were collected. Results: We received 290 valid questionnaire responses. Clinicians’ opinions on clinically significant change was inconsistent between clinicians and scenarios, and was generally larger than RCV. Clinicians commented that they were not familiar with the variability of the laboratory tests. Conclusions: Clinicians' opinions on clinically significant changes were more prominent than RCV. Meanwhile, they tended to neglect the analytical and biological variation. Laboratories should properly guide clinicians on the RCV of tests for better decision-making on patients’ clinical states.
KW - Biological variation
KW - Clinically significant change
KW - Consecutive laboratory result
KW - Reference change value
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164229308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117462
DO - 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117462
M3 - Article
C2 - 37390943
AN - SCOPUS:85164229308
SN - 0009-8981
VL - 548
JO - Clinica Chimica Acta
JF - Clinica Chimica Acta
M1 - 117462
ER -