In this revision, the hierarchy is simplified and represented by three different models to set analytical performance specifications. There is general agreement that some of these are better suited for certain measurands than for others. Model 1. Based on the effect of analytical performance on clinical outcomesThis can, in principle, be done using different types of studies:1. Direct outcome studies -investigating the impact of analytical performance of the test on clinical outcomes; 2. Indirect outcome studies -investigating the impact of analytical performance of the test on clinical classifications or decisions and thereby on the probability of patient outcomes, e.g., by simulation or decision analysis.Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/11/18 4:25 AM

Abstract:Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of "normal practice" and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.

Background: It is not clear if good methodologic quality in current practice guidelines necessarily leads to more valid recommendations, i.e., those that are supported with consistent research evidence or, when evidence is conflicting or lacking, with sufficient consensus among the guideline development team. To help clarify this issue, we assessed whether there is a link between methodologic quality and recommendation validity in practice guidelines for the use of laboratory tests in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of data on laboratory tests in NSCLC published in English or in French within the last 10 years and retrieved 11 practice guidelines for the use of these tests. The guidelines

In clinical practice, the finding of an elevated mean corpuscular volume (MCV), macrocytic anaemia or specific neurological symptoms is often the reason to test for vitamin B12 (B12) deficiency. Use of the MCV as a test for the detection or exclusion of B12 deficiency is only justified if the diagnostic accuracy is sufficiently high. However, the sensitivity and specificity are not well known. We performed a systematic review of the diagnostic value of an elevated MCV for B12 deficiency in both anaemic and non-anaemic patients. Of approximately 3500 titles and/or abstracts that were screened, 37 original papers contained usable data. The population under study proved to be the characteristic of major influence on the study outcome. Pooling of data from different studies was performed in subsets of the data corresponding to the different populations studied. The cut-off levels of both MCV and serum B12 had a significant influence on the study outcomes. The data, however, were pooled without taking these cut-off levels into account. The pooled estimates should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. The reference standards were (1) a low serum B12 concentration and (2) a B12 deficiency confirmed by low serum B12 combined with additional diagnostic investigations. In the population that was randomly screened for low serum B12, the sensitivity of the MCV for B12 deficiency was 17%, whereas the sensitivity was 30% for B12 deficiency in patients with anaemia. When measurement of serum B12 was ordered to exclude B12 deficiency as part of the patients' treatment, the sensitivity was 30% for low serum B12 concentration, 58% for B12 deficiency and 75% for B12 deficiency in patients with anaemia. In the population with pernicious anaemia, the sensitivity was far from perfect (77%). In the five studies that reported data on the positive predictive value of the MCV for B12 deficiency, this ranged from 0% (0/6) to 55% (11/20). This systematic review shows that a considerable number of B12-deficient patients will remain unnoticed when the MCV is used to rule in patients for further evaluation. Depending on the population studied, up to 84% of cases will than be missed. The MCV can be used to make the diagnosis of B12 deficiency more--or less--probable. An elevated MCV justifies the measurement of serum B12. The MCV should not be used as the only parameter ruling out the diagnosis of B12 deficiency.

No abstract

The in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (IVDR) will take effect in May 2022. This regulation has a large impact on both the manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) and clinical laboratories. For clinical laboratories, the IVDR poses restrictions on the use of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). To provide a uniform interpretation of the IVDR for colleagues in clinical practice, the IVDR Task Force was created by the scientific societies of laboratory specialties in the Netherlands. A guidance document with explanations and interpretations of relevant passages of the IVDR was drafted to help laboratories prepare for the impact of this new legislation. Feedback from interested parties and stakeholders was collected and used to further improve the document. Here we would like to present our approach to our European colleagues and inform them about the impact of the IVDR and, importantly we would like to present potentially useful approaches to fulfill the requirements of the IVDR for LDTs.

No abstract

No abstract