This has already been done by Pathology Harmony, and more importantly signed off by leading members of the ACB, RCPath and IBMS -
recommended nmol/L. See ‘Latest News’ on ACB home page (although dated Jan2011)
End of discussion?? Or just the beginning…
Chris
From:
Clinical biochemistry discussion list [mailto:
Sent: 01 December 2011 13:31
To:
Subject: Harmonising vitamin D reporting units
Deafening silence... does it mean agreement, you don't want the argument or you're on strike?
Jonathan
On 28 Nov 2011, at 16:50, Jonathan Kay wrote:
Same principles as other analytes:
1 Consistency is a good thing
2 Units of measure should be ISO. In this case the authority is passed to IFCC/IUPAC. See 1966 decision. The appropriate unit is mol/ litre.
3 Arguments that depend on current or historical practice are trumped by (2). If (3) isn't trumped by (2) how can we ever make progress?
4 Ad hoc groups, special interest groups and professional societies should be involved in improving consistency but shouldn't oppose (2). They
have a crucial role in managing transitions.
5 Preference (like plumage) don't enter into it.
Jonathan
On 28 Nov 2011, at 12:38,
|
Dear All, What people think about this and what is the preferred unit of reporting? thanks Mohammad |