Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items :

  • Author: J. Wytzes x
  • Clinical Medicine x
Clear All Modify Search


Background: In the region Limburg (The Netherlands) almost all of the five participating laboratories use a different immunoassay platform to determine thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thryoxine (FT4). With the frequent transfer of patients within the region, harmonization of test result interpretation is necessary. In this study, we investigated dysthyroxinemia classification between participating laboratories and developed procedures for improvement.

Methods: Two ring surveys with an interval of 2 years were performed. Four patient groups (n=100) with different dysthyroxinemia classification were based on biochemical results of the Autodelphia analyzer. Samples were tested in five participating laboratories. In each group the percentage of patients classified with dysthyroxinemia was calculated and differences were analyzed by the Fisher’s exact test.

Results: After the first survey, the percentage of patients with hyperthyroxinemia was more than 20% lower in three laboratories compared to the other two. Bhattacharya analysis revealed that the upper reference limit of FT4 was 20%–30% too high in two laboratories. Adjustments of reference ranges appeared to be effective in the second survey. The third laboratory reported significantly lower percentages of patients with hyperthyroxinemia in the second survey. New FT4 reference ranges were determined for this laboratory, resulting in adequate classification of hyperthyroxinemia.

Conclusions: This study illustrates the potential of a multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a biochemical-defined patient cohort. In particular, classification of hyperthyroxinemia differed between laboratories. Adjustments of reference ranges resulted in better agreement of dysthyroxinemia classification. Even using internal and external quality assurance programs, application of multicenter ring surveys is advised to prevent inadequate reference ranges.


Several studies have shown that recommendations related to how laboratory testing should be performed and results interpreted are limited in medical guidelines and that the uptake and implementation of the recommendations that are available need improvement. The EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conducted a survey amongst the national societies for clinical chemistry in Europe regarding development of laboratory-related guidelines. The results showed that most countries have guidelines that are specifically related to laboratory testing; however, not all countries have a formal procedure for accepting such guidelines and few countries have guideline committees. Based on this, the EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conclude that there is still room for improvement regarding these processes in Europe and raise the question if the accreditation bodies could be a facilitator for an improvement.


Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of “normal practice” and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.


Intake of drugs may influence the interpretation of laboratory test results. Knowledge and correct interpretation of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for physicians, pharmacists and laboratory specialists. Laboratory results may be affected by analytical or physiological effects of medication. Failure to take into account the possible unintended influence of drug use on a laboratory test result may lead to incorrect diagnosis, incorrect treatment and unnecessary follow-up. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the literature investigating the clinical impact and use of DLTI decision support systems on laboratory test interpretation. Particular interactions were reported in a large number of articles, but they were fragmentarily described and some papers even reported contradictory findings. To provide an overview of information that clinicians and laboratory staff need to interpret test results, DLTI databases have been made by several groups. In a literature search, only four relevant studies have been found on DLTI decision support applications for laboratory test interpretation in clinical practice. These studies show a potential benefit of automated DLTI messages to physicians for the correct interpretation of laboratory test results. Physicians reported 30–100% usefulness of DLTI messages. In one study 74% of physicians sometimes even refrained from further additional examination. The benefit of decision support increases when a refined set of clinical rules is determined in cooperation with health care professionals. The prevalence of DLTIs is high in a broad range of combinations of laboratory tests and drugs and these frequently remain unrecognized.