Delta Checks in the clinical laboratory

Randell, Edward; Yenice, Sedef

doi:10.1080/10408363.2018.1540536

Cited by 46 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, to control for the inter-individual variability, we used the mean variation for delta (Δ)-values (post-intervention minus pre-intervention) of the following measures: change on NPS (0-10) during the CPM test, CPT, HPT, and HPTo. 43 Generalized linear models (GLM) were used to analyze the main effect for intervention group (a-tDCS, HS, a-tDCS/HS, and s-tDCS/HS) on the following outcomes measures (dependent variables): change on the NPS (0-10) during the CPM-test, HPT, HPTo and CPT. According to literature, age can mediate changes in BDNF signaling associated with both excitatory and inhibitory synapses in the prefrontal cortex 26 as well as the response on a conditioned stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>The Hypnotic Analgesia Suggestion Mitigated the Effect of the Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Descending Pain Modulatory System: A Proof of Concept Study</p>

Serrano¹,

Rodrigues²,

Schein³

et al. 2020

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We evaluated whether active(a)-tDCS combined with hypnotic analgesia suggestion (HS) would be more effective than a single active(a)-tDCS, and/or sham-(s)-tDCS and s-tDCS/HS on the following outcomes: function of descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) during the conditioned pain modulation test (CPM-test) (primary outcome), heat pain threshold (HPT), heat pain tolerance (HPTo) and cold pressor test (CPT) (secondary outcomes). We also examined whether their effects are related to neuroplasticity state evaluated by serum brain-derived-neurotropic factor (BDNF). Materials and Methods: Forty-eight females received one session of one of the four interventions (a-tDCS/HS, s-tDCS/HS, a-tDCS, and s-tDCS) in an incomplete randomized crossover sequence. The a-tDCS or s-tDCS was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for 30 minutes at 2mA. Results: A generalized linear model revealed a significant main effect for the intervention group (P <0.032). The delta-(Δ) pain score on the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) during CPM-test in the a-tDCS/HS group was −0.25 (0.43). The (Δ) pain score on NPS (0-10) during CPM-test in the other three groups was a-tDCS=−0.54 (0.41), HS −0.01 (0.41) and s-tDCS/HS=−0.19 (0.43). A-tDCS/HS intervention increased the CPT substantially compared to all other interventions. Also, higher baseline levels of BDNF were associated with a larger change in CPT and HPTo. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the HS combined with a-tDCS mitigated the effect of the a-tDCS on the DPMS. The a-tDCS up-regulates the inhibition on DPMS, and the HS improved pain tolerance. And, together they enhanced the reaction time substantially upon the CPT. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>The Hypnotic Analgesia Suggestion Mitigated the Effect of the Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Descending Pain Modulatory System: A Proof of Concept Study</p>

Serrano¹,

Rodrigues²,

Schein³

et al. 2020

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is widely accepted that test results with historical values should be confirmed by a delta check [19, 20]. In our study, delta check was used for the results with historical data and failing the limited check.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our study, delta check was used for the results with historical data and failing the limited check. The delta check was performed to compare present test results with previous results and to identify variations beyond patient’s expected values, such as changes in a patient’s clinical condition or specimens with presence of clots [20–24]. Delta check can be performed using various methods, including the delta difference, delta percent change, rate difference, and rate percent difference [22, 25, 26].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and evaluation of a LIS-based autoverification system for coagulation assays in a core clinical laboratory

Wang

Peng

Kang

et al. 2019

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The autoverification system for coagulation consists of a series of rules that allow normal data to be released without manual verification. With new advances in medical informatics, the laboratory information system (LIS) has growing potential for the autoverification, allowing rapid and accurate verification of clinical laboratory tests. The purpose of the study is to develop and evaluate a LIS-based autoverification system for validation and efficiency. Methods Autoverification decision rules, including quality control, analytical error flag, critical value, limited range check, delta check and logical check, as well as patient’s historical information, were integrated into the LIS. Autoverification limited range was constructed based on 5 and 95% percentiles. The four most commonly used coagulation assays, prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), thrombin time (TT), and fibrinogen (FBG), were followed by the autoverification protocols. The validation was assessed by the autoverification passing rate, the true-positive cases, the true-negative cases, the false-positive cases, the false-negative cases, the sensitivity and the specificity; the efficiency was evaluated in the turnaround time (TAT). Results A total of 157,079 historical test results of coagulation profiles from January 2016 to December 2016 were collected to determine the distribution intervals. The autoverification passing rate was 77.11% (29,165/37,821) based on historical patient data. In the initial test of the autoverification version in June 2017, the overall autoverification passing rate for the whole sample was 78.75% (11,257/14,295), with 892 true-positive cases, 11,257 true-negative cases, 2146 false-positive cases, no false-negative cases, sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 83.99%. After formal implementation of the autoverification system for 6 months, 83,699 samples were assessed. The average overall autoverification passing rate for the whole sample was 78.86% and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the passing rate was [78.25, 79.59%]. TAT was reduced from 126 min to 101 min, which was statistically significant ( P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions The autoverification system for coagulation assays based on LIS can halt the samples with abnormal values for manual verification, guarantee medical safety, minimize the requirements for manual work, shorten TAT and raise working efficiency.

show abstract

“…A significant change occurs when the interval change in results is larger than expected indicating a problem in testing either the former or the current specimen 4 . In 1974, Nosanchuk and Gottmann introduced the concept in a hematology laboratory by performing retrospective analysis of serial laboratory results of complete blood counts (CBCs) and differentials to detect inconsistencies in test results 5 . If the change is higher than the expected threshold, repeat measurement of both the previous and current samples can be done along with an investigation to find out whether the change is a true clinical change or due to a laboratory error thus providing a safety net 5 .…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1974, Nosanchuk and Gottmann introduced the concept in a hematology laboratory by performing retrospective analysis of serial laboratory results of complete blood counts (CBCs) and differentials to detect inconsistencies in test results 5 . If the change is higher than the expected threshold, repeat measurement of both the previous and current samples can be done along with an investigation to find out whether the change is a true clinical change or due to a laboratory error thus providing a safety net 5 . Furthermore, delta check is crucial for autoverification of test results to improve laboratory efficiency 4 and for detecting potential errors that may arise at several points throughout the total testing process 6 .…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of delta checks for error control in a hematology laboratory

Ali¹,

Khalid

Moiz

2020

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delta Checks in the clinical laboratory

Cited by 46 publications

References 105 publications

<p>The Hypnotic Analgesia Suggestion Mitigated the Effect of the Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Descending Pain Modulatory System: A Proof of Concept Study</p>

<p>The Hypnotic Analgesia Suggestion Mitigated the Effect of the Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Descending Pain Modulatory System: A Proof of Concept Study</p>

Design and evaluation of a LIS-based autoverification system for coagulation assays in a core clinical laboratory

Performance evaluation of delta checks for error control in a hematology laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About