> 1) Is it justifiable to do such a factoring exercise to satisfy the
> clinicians?
Firstly, It causes more trouble than it is worth. Years ago, we had a
reference range for alkaline phosphatase of 4-13 King Armstrong Units / dL.
The method was changed, and the results corrected, so many times over
the years that no-one knew what the origin of the correction factors were,
let alone the source of the reference range. So we started from scratch,
reported new "proper" units, derived a new reference range, and a bit of
hard work on education and communication went a long way, and the
clinicians understood.
Secondly, how many different methodologies have a linear relationship to
each other? The same correction factor may not be applicable across the
whole range of the assay.
Thirdly, (and forgetting the second point) if we reported e.g. multiple of
median for all assays, we would not need units or conversion factors, and
the SI unit users could understand the non-SI unit users, and vice-versa.
Excuse me while I take cover.
Steve Goodall
Steve Goodall
Clinical Biochemist
Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals
UK
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|