Debadatta Panigrahi¹, Erum Khan², Yehia Saleh Ahmed Mohamed³ and Ashok Rattan⁴*

¹Professor, College of Medicine, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE

*Corresponding Author: Ashok Rattan, Professor, Chairman Medical Committee and Quality, Redciffe Lab, Noida, India.

Received: August 29, 2022; Published: September 30, 2022

Abstract

Clinical diagnostic laboratory plays a very important role in safe delivery of quality service to the patient. Over 70 per cent of all management decisions in the clinics and hospitals are based on laboratory results. It is therefore of paramount importance that the laboratory issues out reports that are accurate, reliable and reproducible and available to clinicians in a clinically relevant time frame.

The diagnostic cycle can be divided into three phases (which has been further divided into five) with the pre analytical phase being the most error prone. A number of variables effect the results and each variable has to be controlled if we wish to obtain reliable results. Sensitivity and specificity are inherent attributes of a test, but the positive and negative predictive value depends upon the prevalence of the disease in the community. We can increase the value of the test by considering the likelihood ratio and understanding the roc of the test.

Keywords: Diagnostic; Likelihood Ratio; Sensitivity

References

1. Ducatman BS., et al. “The value proposition for pathologists: a population health approach”. SAGE 7 (2019).
2. Lippi G., et al. “Preanalytical quality improvement. In pursuit of harmony, on behalf of the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for preanalytical phase (WG-PRE)”. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 3 (2015): 357-370.
3. Lippi G., et al. “Preanalytical quality improvement: in the quality we trust”. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 1 (2013): 229-241.
4. Plebani M and Carraro P. “Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency”. Clinical Chemistry 8 (1997): 1348-1351.
5. Rana SVS., et al. “No preanalytical errors in laboratory testing, A beneficial aspect for patients”. BMC Public Health 2 (2012): 2-7.
6. Demissie Assegu Fenta and Musa Mohammed Ali. “Factors affecting quality of laboratory results during ordering, handling and testing the patient’s specimen at Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Sciences comprehensive specialized hospital”. Journal of Multidiscipline Health 13 (2020): 809-821.
7. Cadamuro J., et al. “European survey on preanalytical sample handling-part 1: how do European laboratories monitor the preanalytical phase? On behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PRE)”. Biochemia Medica 29 (2019): 322-333.
8. Lippi G., et al. “Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality”. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 49 (2011): 1113-1126.
9. Mario Plebani. “Quality indicators to detect pre-analytical errors in laboratory testing”. Clinical Biochemist Reviews 3 (2012): 85-88.
10. Callum G Fraser. “Age-related changes in laboratory test results”. Drugs and Aging 3 (1993): 246-257.
11. SJ Pocock., et al. “Diurnal variations in serum biochemical and haematological measurements”. Journal of Clinical Pathology 42: (1989): 172-179.
12. Kinga Lis. “Influence of diet on the results of laboratory tests”. Medical Studies4 (2013): 349-354.
13. Salem Ranabir and K Reetu. “Stress and hormones”. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 1 (2011): 18-22.
14. Helmreich DL., et al. “Relation between the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis during repeated stress”. Neuroendocrinology 81 (205): 183-192.
15. Foren SE., et al. “Effect of exercise on laboratory test results”. Laboratory Medicine 34 (2003): 736-742.
16. Book Donald S. Young Edited: “Effect of drugs on clinical laboratory tests”. 5^th Edition, Volume 2 (Expanded 2 vol edi); AACC press (2000).
17. Schultze AE and Lrizarry AR. “Recognizing and reducing analytical errors and sources of variations in clinical pathology data safety assessment studies”. Toxic Pathology2 (2016): 281-287.
18. Bonini P., et al. “Errors in laboratory medicine”. Clinical Chemistry 48 (2002): 691-698.
19. Adam Morton. “When lab tests lie……… heterophile antibodies”. Australian Family Physician6 (2014): 391-393.
20. Robert Trevethan. “Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: Foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice”. Frontline in Public Health 5 (2017): 1-7.
21. Rajul Parikh., et al. “Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 56 (2008): 45-50.
22. Dar Nazir Ahmad., et al. “Some applications of biostatistics to medical research”. International Journal of Advanced Research 2 (2018): 28-31.
23. Ken Parche., et al. “Preoperative prediction of postoperative urinary retention in lumber surgery: a comparison of regression to multilayer neural network”. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine1 (2021): 32-41.
24. Golubovsky JL., et al. “Risk factors and associated complications for preoperative urinary retention after lumber surgery for spine stenosis”. Spine Journal9 (2018): 1533-1539.
25. Gandhi SD., et al. “Patient and surgical factors associated with postoperative urinary retention after lumber spine surgery”. Spine (Phil Pa 1976)22 (2014): 1905-1909.

Citation

Citation: Ashok Rattan., et al. “Factors Affecting Patients Test Results". Acta Scientific Microbiology 5.10 (2022): 59-67.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Ashok Rattan., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.