Heart, lung & circulation · 2026
Marked Variability in Lipid Profile Reporting Among Australian Pathology Providers: A National Cross-Sectional Review of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ma Jeff R, Tan Sean, Watts Gerald F, Lan Nick S R, Hungerford Robert, Psaltis Peter J, Marathe Jessica A, Nicholls Stephen J, Nelson Adam J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lipid profiles facilitate cardiovascular risk stratification, therapeutic monitoring, and patient education. Variability in pathology reporting practices may generate confusion among clinicians and patients. While there is a central accreditation body for the provision of pathology in Australia, reporting formats are not regulated. This study aimed to characterise the variation in reporting of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels among Australian pathology providers.
METHOD: A cross-sectional national review was conducted in November 2024. Public and private pathology laboratory networks from every Australian state and territory, accredited by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, were contacted via structured interviews and invited to submit de-identified or template lipid panel reports.
RESULTS: Seventeen of the 18 laboratory networks contacted provided data. Six were state-wide centralised public pathology providers, eight were individual public hospital laboratory networks, and three were national private pathology networks. Six different LDL-C upper reference limits were observed (range, 2.0-3.7 mmol/L). Formatting practices for abnormal values varied significantly. Only four pathology networks provided individualised interpretative comments. Among the eight laboratory networks that included recommendations for familial dyslipidaemia investigation, LDL-C cut-offs differed considerably. Seven different guidelines were referenced in the reports, and none reflected contemporary recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The format and content of lipid panel reporting varied widely across Australian pathology providers. Referenced guidelines were outdated, and this likely contributes to misunderstanding of contemporary treatment targets for both patients and clinicians. Harmonised lipid panel reporting may significantly improve dyslipidaemia management.
METHOD: A cross-sectional national review was conducted in November 2024. Public and private pathology laboratory networks from every Australian state and territory, accredited by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, were contacted via structured interviews and invited to submit de-identified or template lipid panel reports.
RESULTS: Seventeen of the 18 laboratory networks contacted provided data. Six were state-wide centralised public pathology providers, eight were individual public hospital laboratory networks, and three were national private pathology networks. Six different LDL-C upper reference limits were observed (range, 2.0-3.7 mmol/L). Formatting practices for abnormal values varied significantly. Only four pathology networks provided individualised interpretative comments. Among the eight laboratory networks that included recommendations for familial dyslipidaemia investigation, LDL-C cut-offs differed considerably. Seven different guidelines were referenced in the reports, and none reflected contemporary recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The format and content of lipid panel reporting varied widely across Australian pathology providers. Referenced guidelines were outdated, and this likely contributes to misunderstanding of contemporary treatment targets for both patients and clinicians. Harmonised lipid panel reporting may significantly improve dyslipidaemia management.