Utilization of biological variation data in the interpretation of laboratory test results – survey about clinicians’ opinion and knowledge

Abstract

Introduction To interpret test results correctly, understanding of the variations that affect test results is essential. The aim of this study is: 1) to evaluate the clinicians’ knowledge and opinion concerning biological variation (BV), and 2) to investigate if clinicians use BV in the interpretation of test results. Materials and methods This study uses a questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions. Questions were selected from the real-life numerical examples of interpretation of test results, the knowledge about main sources of variations in laboratories and the opinion of clinicians on BV. A total of 399 clinicians were interviewed, and the answers were evaluated using a scoring system ranked from A (clinician has the highest level of knowledge and the ability of using BV data) to D (clinician has no knowledge about variations in laboratory). The results were presented as number (N) and percentage (%). Results Altogether, 60.4% of clinicians have knowledge of pre-analytical and analytical variations; but only 3.5% of them have knowledge related to BV. The number of clinicians using BV data or reference change value (RCV) to interpret measurements results was zero, while 79.4% of clinicians accepted that the difference between two measurements results located within the reference interval may be significant. Conclusions Clinicians do not use BV data or tools derived from BV such as RCV to interpret test results. It is recommended that BV should be included in the medical school curriculum, and clinicians should be encouraged to use BV data for safe and valid interpretation of test results.

Stability of Selected Biochemical Analytes in Serum Stored at Room Temperature for 24 Hours at Kericho County Referral Hospital, Kenya

“…Accurate and timely laboratory test results, which can be obtained through careful monitoring of the testing process, are fundamental for correct diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis in patients with different diseases (Emre et al, 2021). The laboratory testing process is divided into preanalytical, analytical, and post-analytical phases, and a mishap at any stage in this process will most likely end with unreliable results (Bonini et al, 2002, Alavi et al, 2020.…”

“…The various analytes have stability limits, which is the point in time when the percentage deviation (PD %) of the analyte reaches the maximum allowable error (Emre et al, 2021). Stability limits should be defined for each analyte, and these can be used as a rejection for samples before processing (Gómez-Rioja et al, 2019).…”

“…Stability limits should be defined for each analyte, and these can be used as a rejection for samples before processing (Gómez-Rioja et al, 2019). A number of experimental studies have assessed the stability of most laboratory analytes under various conditions, with different and sometimes inconsistent results due to the lack of standard experimental designs and wide variability in maximum permissible instability (MPI) specifications (Emre et al, 2021). Also, there are few clinical guidelines with general recommendations for the laboratories (Shimizu & Ichihara, 2019).…”