Dr Konrad Chan wrote:
>1) Is it justifiable to do such a factoring exercise to satisfy the
>clinicians?
Apart from the discussion if LDH is of clinical value, this question is
generally applicable.
Assume that you have a laboratory method with a too poor technical quality e
g systematic errors due to positive or negative interference with other
components in the sample.
Then assume that you introduce a new, chemically more specific method. The
output from this improved method is therfore more correct than those of the
old method, and hence also its clinical value should improve.
Of course, the values of the new method should be used, but then your
problem appears: How to inform the clincians that these values are different
but more true?
Those having a good contact with all clinicians probably solve this by some
kind of written and/or verbal information. But information is difficult and
then factoring may seem to be a tempting alternative.
Temporarily a conversion table may be used, especially if a long-termed
trend in the analyte is of clinical interest.
In any case, the name of the improved method should be changed in order to
avoid mixing up values obtained from the old bad method with the more
correct values from the improved.
Mr Sten Öhman, PhD
Elfin Lab & Milieuconsult - Part of the Wiltag group
E-Mail address: [log in to unmask]
Telephone int: +46 13 368941, Nat: 013-368940
Fax int: +46 13 368941, Nat: 013-368941
Mobile tel: 0709-526415
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|