Recommendations for reporting and flagging of reference limits on pathology reports.

Q1 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Clinical Biochemist Reviews Pub Date : 2014-11-01
Robert Flatman, Michael Legg, Graham Rd Jones, Peter Graham, Donna Moore, Jill Tate
{"title":"Recommendations for reporting and flagging of reference limits on pathology reports.","authors":"Robert Flatman,&nbsp;Michael Legg,&nbsp;Graham Rd Jones,&nbsp;Peter Graham,&nbsp;Donna Moore,&nbsp;Jill Tate","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surveys by the RCPA PITUS Project have shown significant variations in report rendering between Australasian Pathology Providers. The same project collected anecdotal evidence that this variation has led to the misunderstanding and misreading of results - a clinical safety issue. Recommendations are given for the rendering of reference limits on pathology reports, determination and rendering of result flags, and the documentation of sub-population partitions for reference intervals. These recommendations apply equally for paper or electronic reporting, but should not limit the use of novel techniques within electronic reports to convey additional meaning. PITUS Working Group 4 will publish draft recommendations for peer review and comment in relation to the above in the second half of 2014. </p>","PeriodicalId":34924,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biochemist Reviews","volume":"35 4","pages":"199-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310059/pdf/cbr-35-199.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biochemist Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Surveys by the RCPA PITUS Project have shown significant variations in report rendering between Australasian Pathology Providers. The same project collected anecdotal evidence that this variation has led to the misunderstanding and misreading of results - a clinical safety issue. Recommendations are given for the rendering of reference limits on pathology reports, determination and rendering of result flags, and the documentation of sub-population partitions for reference intervals. These recommendations apply equally for paper or electronic reporting, but should not limit the use of novel techniques within electronic reports to convey additional meaning. PITUS Working Group 4 will publish draft recommendations for peer review and comment in relation to the above in the second half of 2014.

病理报告中参考限度的报告和标记建议。
RCPA PITUS项目的调查显示,澳大利亚病理提供者之间的报告呈现存在显著差异。同一项目收集的轶事证据表明,这种差异导致了对结果的误解和误读——这是一个临床安全问题。给出了病理报告参考限度的呈现,结果标志的确定和呈现,以及参考间隔的亚种群分区的文档的建议。这些建议同样适用于纸质报告或电子报告,但不应限制在电子报告中使用新技术来传达额外的含义。PITUS第4工作组将于2014年下半年发布与上述内容相关的建议草案,供同行评审和评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Biochemist Reviews
Clinical Biochemist Reviews Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信