Reading Time: 6 minutes
Introduction
A system (similar to a National Formulary for drugs) to provide scientists, doctors, patients and the general public with evidence on the performance and usefulness of laboratory tests does not exist despite the widespread use of established laboratory tests and the unprecedented explosion in the development of new technologies and the marketing of testing services.
As is true of all scientific data, the result of a laboratory test has no significance when considered in isolation. In order to compare two things, a control, a standard, or a reference value must be used. Comparison is as vital to science as it is to any other field of study. The clinical signs and symptoms noted by doctors during clinical examination and interview are checked against a database of signs and symptoms linked with the disease, which may be consciously or subconsciously referred to for comparison with those exhibited by the patient under evaluation. Similar to this, the process of interpreting laboratory test results is a process of comparison. For laboratory tests, the sort of reference utilised for comparison will depend on the question that will be addressed by the laboratory test. For example, if the test is being used to monitor a specific disease process, previous test results from that patient may be the most appropriate reference for comparison; serial concentrations of blood haemoglobin or tumour markers to assess response to anaemia or cancer therapy are good examples of such tests in practise.
Some laboratory tests are not used for diagnosis or monitoring, but rather to help doctors make specific clinical decisions about their patients. For example, the measurement of serum cholesterol is most frequently used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease and to determine whether or not cholesterol-lowering advice or medications are necessary. During such conditions, a certain concentration of the analyte must be determined, which is referred to as the “decision limit.” It is the decision limit that serves as a point of reference for comparison. Some laboratory tests are used to monitor drug therapy, while others are intended to detect drug interactions. Patients’ results are compared with those of a so-called “therapeutic range,” which specifies the range of drug concentrations in the blood that is associated with the greatest therapeutic benefit while minimising unfavourable (toxic) effects.
The population-based “health-associated” reference interval is the most extensively used of all the instruments designed for comparison and interpretation of patient test results. When interpreting laboratory results, it is necessary to consider the context of a reference interval that is used to discriminate between “normal” and “abnormal.” Using their knowledge of biological variation, the scientist must also examine the results and be cognizant of the possibility of erroneous interpretation. Similarly, the influence of random errors and systematic errors on the result, as well as the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, are all important considerations.
Important Concepts In The Interpretation Of Laboratory Data
A short overview of some of the most important concepts in the interpretation of laboratory data. is given below:
Reference interval
The ability to relate a laboratory result to an appropriate reference value is required for proper interpretation of the results. If possible, this can be done by comparing the patient’s earlier results to data from a “normal” population, or it can be done by comparing the patient’s earlier results. In the latter situation, a reference region for the analysis in question must be supplied in order to make use of the test result.
It is necessary to construct a reference region by collecting sample material from a normal healthy population, which should consist of at least 100 individuals and preferably several hundred individuals. Those examinations might be carried out by the laboratory itself, utilising samples obtained from donors, or they could be based on data from the literature. As you might imagine, measurements of samples taken from different persons will not produce results that are the same. This is due to the variability inherent in nature and the uncertainty inherent in the measurement itself. When the reference interval is constructed using a normal population as the basis, the data will tend to cluster around the mean and will most commonly exhibit a normal distribution or a Gaussian distribution. The shape of the distribution is determined by the biological variation for the analyte in issue, the sampling and treatment of the sample, and the uncertainty in the measurement.
In order to apply this reference distribution in a clinical setting, you must first restrict the area covered by the distribution by inserting a reference interval. It is statistically significant that around 95 percent of the values in a normal distribution will fall within a range of mean 2 standard deviations when the variable being measured has a normal distribution. In many cases, measurements taken within these boundaries are used to characterise the test values that are commonly observed in a healthy population, and these measurements are referred to as the “normal range.” In the same way, nearly 99 percent of the population will fall within a mean of three standard deviations. So an interval with 95 percent of the values is limited by a lower and upper reference limit, which equate to 2.5 percent and 97.5 percent of the values, respectively, of the values in the reference interval Consequently, the values on either side of these reference boundaries are not considered to be part of the “normal range.” According to statistics, this indicates that 5 percent of a population, or one out of every twenty people, must be labelled weird!
Age, gender, size, and ethnic background are all factors that influence the interval, and it must be underlined that the interval must be clearly defined and appropriate for the demographic population.
Bias (Accuracy) and Precision
When a sample is measured multiple times, it is uncommon that the results will be the same each time the sample is measured. Instead, depending on how precise the measuring method is, the results will stray more or less from the expected value. Similarly, when two distinct procedures are used to measure the same sample, the findings will rarely be exactly the same; rather, they will differ more or less depending on the accuracy of the methods.
Consequently, the two most significant contributors to analytical uncertainty are precision (imprecision) and accuracy (bias), each of which makes a contribution in the form of random and systematic errors. Precision can be defined as the degree to which identical measurements taken under identical conditions get the same findings as the first measurement. In the laboratory, the term imprecision is more commonly used to refer to the random analytical errors that can have an impact on the outcomes of a test.
Accuracy is defined as the degree to which measurements of a quantity are accurate in relation to the quantity’s real or acknowledged value. In the laboratory, however, the term bias, which is equal to the amount of error, is more frequently used to characterise the systematic discrepancies between measurement methods or between a measurement method and a reference value, rather than the phrase precision.
Sensitivity and Specificity
Specificity is defined as the ability of a method to measure only the analyte itself, without interference from other substances present in the testing sample. In laboratory science terminology, a sensitive method is one that is capable of measuring low concentrations of the analyte, as a sensitive method is one that measures only the analyte itself. As a result, the analytical sensitivity and specificity are referred to as the analytical sensitivity and specificity, respectively.
Whenever laboratory tests are interpreted, we speak of the clinical or diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, which are concerned with the possibility of determining whether or not a patient is suffering from a specific condition. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity are essential problems for scientists because they demonstrate how dependable a test is and how well it is suited for the intended goal. When a test result reveals a value that corresponds to a certain illness state, there are two possibilities: the disease may be present or the disease may be absent, depending on the value. In the first instance, we are dealing with a real positive result for the disease, whereas in the latter instance, we are dealing with a false positive result.
Similarly, if the result indicates that a disease has not been detected, the person may be free of the condition or may actually be suffering from the disease. In this circumstance, we have either real negatives or false negatives, depending on the situation. When it comes to diagnosing positives, diagnostic sensitivity is the percentage of actual positives that are correctly identified as positive. Afterwards, it serves as a measure of the analytical method’s ability to detect a certain disease state.
Conclusion
When interpreting a laboratory result, a number of factors must be considered, and the interpretation is also influenced by the reason for which the test was sought – whether it was for diagnostic purposes, monitoring purposes, or screening purposes. The test must be extremely sensitive if it is asked for the purpose of ruling out a diagnosis, and it must be highly specific if it is requested for the purpose of diagnosing an illness with a high risk of occurrence. The process of interpreting a laboratory result begins with the scientist requesting the appropriate test for the clinical situation he or she is currently dealing with. The expectation is that the result will provide information that will support a decision on the subsequent treatment.
About The Author: Optymum SS is a networked, international pipeline-organisation of chartered scientists and certified laboratories. UK Chartered Scientists represent the best professional scientists working in the UK and abroad. We utilise our innovative business model to support the provision of the best, most cost-effective solutions to challenges within the broad life sciences –advancing well-being and quality of life. For more information about working with us or joining our partnership, please get in touch.
