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 / 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

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 55, Issue 8

Issues

To report or not to report: a proposal on how to deal with altered test results in hemolytic samples

Janne Cadamuro
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Laboratory Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Müllner Hauptstr. 48, 5020 Salzburg, Austria, Phone: 0043-57255-57263, Fax: 0043-57255-23199
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Cornelia Mrazek / Elisabeth Haschke-Becher / Sverre Sandberg
  • Norwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations (Noklus), Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
  • Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-02-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-1064

Abstract

Preanalytically altered test results are a challenge every laboratory has to face. The release of such results may be to the harm of the patient by triggering wrong clinical decision making in monitoring or treatment. On the other hand, their deletion also might be to the harm of the patient by delaying the time to decision making as the exact value sometimes is not even necessary but rather an answer to the question “Is it raised or lowered”. Based on this dilemma and forced to produce laboratory values without any clinical information on the respective patient, laboratories have developed their own preferred way on how to deal with preanalytically altered test results. Some release the value with a comment, some reject the value with or without a comment and others again provide only general information about the hemolytic sample. To date there is no guideline or standardization to this postanalytical topic. Therefore, with this opinion paper, we want to start the scientific discussion on this important issue by providing one possible method to overcome the lack of clinical information which the laboratory would need to correctly decide whether or not to release an altered test result. We suggest providing the clinician with all the information on the hemolytic sample and its impact on the respective parameter needed to make his/her own decision on the usage of the respective test result. We believe that reporting a preanalytically altered laboratory value including a respective comment is preferable to not reporting it.

Keywords: hemolysis; patient safety; postanalytics

References

  • 1.

    Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 2007;53:1338–42.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st strategic conference of the european federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:833–5.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Gimenez-Marin A, Rivas-Ruiz F, Perez-Hidalgo Mdel M, Molina-Mendoza P. Pre-analytical errors management in the clinical laboratory: a five-year study. Biochem Med 2014;24:248–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764–72.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    CLSI EP7-A2. Interference testing in clinical chemistry; approved guideline, 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2005.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    CLSI C56-A. Hemolysis, icterus and lipemia/turbidity indices as indicators of interference in clinical laboratory analysis; approved guideline. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2012.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-22

Published Online: 2017-02-16

Published in Print: 2017-07-26


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 55, Issue 8, Pages 1109–1111, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-1064.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

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]
Charlotte Gils, Pernille Just Vinholt, and Mads Nybo
Biochemia Medica, 2019, Volume 29, Number 1
[2]
Laura Heireman, Pieter Van Geel, Lorenz Musger, Evelien Heylen, Wim Uyttenbroeck, and Boris Mahieu
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017
[3]
Giuseppe Lippi, Gianfranco Cervellin, and Mario Plebani
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2017, Volume 55, Number 8

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in