Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R. / Tsongalis, Gregory J.

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2014: 2.707
Rank 6 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2014: 0.741
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2014: 1.011
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2014: 2.310

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Improved Laboratory Test Selection and Enhanced Perception of Test Results as Tools for Cost-Effective Medicine

Michael Mayer / Ian Wilkinson / Risto Heikkinen / Torben Ørntoft / Erik Magid

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 36, Issue 9, Pages 683–690, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.1998.121, June 2005

Publication History

Published Online:
2005-06-01

Abstract

Inconsistencies in the way physicians perceive and handle identical laboratory results have untoward effects on morbidity, mortality and cost of medical care. In this context, the selection of suitable tests to answer definite clinical questions, and the manner in which laboratory results are presented have great impact on the action taken by the clinician.

This review addresses preferred methods to improve laboratory test selection, and examines methods that more effectively convey laboratory results to clinicians. It is anticipated that refined selection of tests, and presentation of the test results in a configuration that is easily perceived by the clinician, will facilitate interpretation of laboratory reports. Furthermore, any measures that promote the application of laboratory information in medical practice improve economics at the laboratory-clinical interface.

The presently described methods to optimize test selection and interpretation are:

likelihood ratios to provide estimates of the ability of a test to identify a clinical condition;

consensus-and discriminant function-analysis to estimate the performance of tests in diagnosing a particular disease or condition;

receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to assess discrimination capabilities.

The methods which improve test result perception are expression of results as multiples of the upper normal limit, utilizing signal strength to provide prognostic probabilities, and presentation of results in graphic forms that display mutually interrelated functions, with a specific cluster of results being highly suggestive of a given condition.

In addition, we discuss application of expert systems to provide rules based on knowledge and experience to analyze results of tests and suggest diagnosis and action, including additional tests when required.

It is anticipated that judicious utilization of laboratory services by application of the reviewed methodologies will help to achieve medically justified responses at a lower cost and help to achieve a proper balance between cost of tests and their clinical usefulness.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
T. Torsvik, B. Lillebo, and G. Mikkelsen
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2013, Volume 20, Number 2, Page 325
[2]
Ana García Raja, Imma Caballé Martín, and Ángeles Giménez Marín
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2008, Volume 1, Number 2, Page 75
[3]
Michael L Wilson
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2002, Volume 22, Number 2, Page 491
[4]
Carmen Biosca, Carmen Ricós, Ricardo Lauzurica, and Per Hyltoft Petersen
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2006, Volume 368, Number 1-2, Page 188
[5]
Heidi Lam, Arthur E. Kirkpatrick, John Dill, and M. Stella Atkins
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2006, Volume 21, Number 1, Page 73
[6]
Matthew J. McQueen
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 2000, Volume 22, Number 1, Page 1
[7]
Callum G. Fraser
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 1999, Volume 37, Number 2
[8]
I. A. Scott, P. B. Greenberg, and P. A. Phillips
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine, 2000, Volume 30, Number 6, Page 683
[9]
Heidi Lam, Arthur E. Kirkpatrick, John Dill, and M. Stella Atkins
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2006, Volume 21, Number 1, Page 73

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.