Utilization of biological variation data in the interpretation of laboratory test results - survey about clinicians' opinion and knowledge
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
Süreli Yayın başlığı
Süreli Yayın ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
ISSN
Cilt
31
Sayı
1
FEB
FEB
Özet
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.
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.
