This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Using %Hypo as a single analyte to diagnose FID will lead to more appropriate use of limited resources and a reduction in treatment-related complications.

No abstract

Introduction Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a feared complication of various systemic illnesses. We aimed to evaluate the laboratory requesting practices of clinicians, especially concerning the laboratory parameters, included in the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) DIC score. Methods A retrospective descriptive study was performed and included data from DIC screen requests analysed at Universitas National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) laboratory, Bloemfontein, South Africa, for one calendar year. Laboratory request forms were analysed, recording the pretest diagnosis and whether the diagnosis was associated with DIC. Parameters of the DIC screen, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, d‐dimer and fibrinogen were used to calculate the ITSH DIC score and diagnose heparin contamination. The platelet count, currently not part of the DIC screen test set, was also recorded. Results A total of 778 DIC screen requests were processed. One hundred and eighty‐three requests were excluded due to laboratory‐defined rejection criteria, heparin contamination or for lacking an ISTH score parameter. Of the remaining 595 complete requests, 283 (47.7%) were laboratory‐defined overt DIC. The pretest diagnosis was not predictive of either a positive or negative finding of overt DIC. The contribution of fibrinogen to assigning overt DIC was questionable. Conclusion The number of DIC screen requests received highlights the need for laboratory evidence of DIC. To improve laboratory DIC testing, the authors suggest critical evaluation of the contribution of the pretest diagnosis and fibrinogen in a prospective study and adding the platelet count in our local DIC test set.