ArticleBiochemia medica2022
Interpretative comments - need for harmonization? Results of the Croatian survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterpretation of laboratory test results is a complex post-analytical activity that requires not only understanding of the clinical significance of laboratory results but also the analytical phase of laboratory work. The aims of this study were to determine: 1) the general opinion of Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs) about the importance of interpretative comments on laboratory test reports, and 2) to find out whether harmonization of interpretative comments is needed. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was designed as a survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics as part of national External Quality Assessment (EQA) program. All 195 MBLs participating in the national EQA scheme, were invited to participate in the survey. Results are reported as percentages of the total number of survey participants.
resultsOut of 195 MBLs, 162 participated in the survey (83%). Among them 59% MBLs implemented test result comments in routine according to national recommendations. The majority of laboratories (92%) state that interpretative comments added value to the laboratory reports, and a substantial part (72%) does not have feedback from physicians on their significance. Although physicians and patients ask for expert opinion, participants stated that the lack of interest of physicians (64%) as well as the inability to access patient's medical record (62%) affects the quality of expert opinion.
conclusionAlthough most participants state that they use interpretative comments and provide expert opinions regarding test results, results of the present study indicate that harmonization for interpretative comments is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.