Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2024
Delta check limits for thyroid function tests adjusted for clinical settings.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shin Sunghwan, Yu Shinae, Cho Eun-Jung, Shin Kyung-Hwa, Chung Jae-Woo, Kim Sollip, Yoo Soo Jin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine practical delta check limits (DCLs) for thyroid function tests (TFTs) to detect sample misidentifications across various clinical settings.
METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, 610,437 paired TFT results were collected from six university hospitals. The absolute DCL (absDCL) was determined using the 95th percentile for each clinical setting from a random 60 % of the total data. These absDCLs were then tested within and across different settings using the remaining 40 % of the data, alongside mix-up datasets for result and sample comparisons. The sensitivities of absDCL were calculated within and across groups in the mix-up datasets.
RESULTS: Health screening absDCLs were notably lower than in other settings (2.58 vs. 5.93-7.08 for thyroid-stimulating hormone; 4.12 vs. 8.24-10.04 for free thyroxine; 0.49 vs. 0.82-0.91 for total triiodothyronine). The proportion of results exceeding absDCL of health screening differed from those of other clinical settings. Furthermore, sensitivity between health screening and other clinical settings was significantly different in both the result mix-up and sample mix-up datasets.
CONCLUSIONS: This study determined practical DCLs for TFTs and highlighted differences in absDCLs between health screening and other settings. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored DCLs in improving the accurate reporting of TFTs.
METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, 610,437 paired TFT results were collected from six university hospitals. The absolute DCL (absDCL) was determined using the 95th percentile for each clinical setting from a random 60 % of the total data. These absDCLs were then tested within and across different settings using the remaining 40 % of the data, alongside mix-up datasets for result and sample comparisons. The sensitivities of absDCL were calculated within and across groups in the mix-up datasets.
RESULTS: Health screening absDCLs were notably lower than in other settings (2.58 vs. 5.93-7.08 for thyroid-stimulating hormone; 4.12 vs. 8.24-10.04 for free thyroxine; 0.49 vs. 0.82-0.91 for total triiodothyronine). The proportion of results exceeding absDCL of health screening differed from those of other clinical settings. Furthermore, sensitivity between health screening and other clinical settings was significantly different in both the result mix-up and sample mix-up datasets.
CONCLUSIONS: This study determined practical DCLs for TFTs and highlighted differences in absDCLs between health screening and other settings. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored DCLs in improving the accurate reporting of TFTs.