HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jcp.2007.047175v1 61/4/419    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Smellie, W S A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smellie, W S A Topic Collections Relevant Article

What is a significant difference between sequential laboratory results?Calf muscle pain can indicate localised vasculitis

Correspondence to:
Dr W Stuart A Smellie, Clinical Laboratory, General Hospital, Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham DL14 6AD, UK; stuart.smellie{at}cddft.nhs.uk

The uncertainty of a numerical laboratory result can be masked by the fact that the laboratory reports an absolute number, whereas users have limited knowledge of the confidence interval of the result. Interpretation of laboratory tests is in reality therefore an inexact science, a balance between clinical context and the likely relevance of a laboratory result.

This review considers the factors which contribute to result variability and examines the implications for interpreting differences between sequential laboratory results. It offers suggestions to deal with a problem which has not yet been much addressed in routine practice. The examples used are restricted to the discipline of clinical biochemistry, although the issues and principles apply to numerical (and indeed qualitative) results in other disciplines.

Laboratories could provide more guidance on the likelihood of a result being significant to assist users. There is a need for discussion about how this is best done, and compatible with electronic result delivery. Options for providing this information are considered.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. McQueen and A. C. Don-Wauchope Requesting and Interpreting Urine Albumin Measurements in the Primary Health Care Setting Clin. Chem., October 1, 2008; 54(10): 1595 - 1597. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Omar, G. F van der Watt, and T. S Pillay Reference change values: how useful are they? J. Clin. Pathol., April 1, 2008; 61(4): 426 - 427. [Full Text] [PDF]