Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

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 / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 3.556

CiteScore 2017: 2.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.188

Print
ISSN
1434-6621
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 40, Issue 3

Issues

Are Laboratory Investigations Recommended in Current Medical Practice Guidelines Supported by Available Evidence?

Joseph Watine
Published Online: 2005-06-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2002.041

Abstract

It has been suggested that evidence-based laboratory medicine (EBLM) could help to improve the pertinence and accuracy of medical guidelines. In order to demonstrate this, we have used an EBLM approach (i.e. a systematic review) to examine three recently published guidelines that gave quite conflicting recommendations regarding the use of laboratory variables in the management of primary non-small cell lung cancer patients. In recommending the routine measurement of serum albumin, and, to a lesser extent, that of serum calcium in the pre-therapeutic prognostic evaluation of the advanced disease, the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society were probably correct with regard to calcium but perhaps mistaken regarding albumin. Some of the recommendations of the European Group on Tumour Markers regarding the usefulness of routine measurements of tumour markers (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), tissue-polypeptide antigen (TPA)) in the pre- and/or post-therapeutic prognostic evaluation can also be criticised. In addition, the latter society as well as the Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française did not even try to list laboratory variables, others than tumour markers, that would be useful to stratify patients participating in clinical trials (i.e. lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), albumin, calcium, blood cell count, etc.), and the laboratory variables listed by the two former societies were probably not the right ones in this context: in particular LDH and tumour markers (fragments of cytokeratin 19 (Cyfra 21–1), tissue-polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS), neuron-specific enolase (NSE)) were not mentioned. Most, if not all of these discrepancies in the current medical practice guidelines might have been avoided had an EBLM approach been used by the authors.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-06-01

Published in Print: 2002-04-10


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 252–255, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2002.041.

Export Citation

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]
Nada Majkic-Singh
Jugoslovenska medicinska biohemija, 2002, Volume 21, Number 3, Page 245
[2]
Paolo Carraro and Paolo Simioni
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2003, Volume 333, Number 2, Page 191
[3]
Tommaso Trenti, Claudia Canali, and Annamaria Scognamiglio
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2006, Volume 44, Number 6
[4]
G Lewison and R Sullivan
British Journal of Cancer, 2008, Volume 98, Number 12, Page 1944

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in