6533b7d0fe1ef96bd125a3d7
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Laboratory testing in the emergency department: an Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) consensus report
Paolo CarraroDaniele CoenLaura BonfantiDavide GiavarinaMauro PanteghiniMario CavazzaFerruccio CeriottiCiro PaolilloMarcello CiaccioGiorgio RicciGiuseppe LippiMario PlebaniFabrizio GiostraGianfranco CervellinIvo CasagrandaSergio Bernardinisubject
medicine.medical_specialty030213 general clinical medicineConsensusClinical BiochemistryMEDLINE030204 cardiovascular system & hematologyLaboratory testingClinical biochemistryLaboratory testingFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineReference ValuesSurveys and QuestionnairesmedicineHumansNational levelConsensus documentCreatine KinaseSocieties Medicallcsh:R5-920business.industryClinical Laboratory TechniquesSettore BIO/12Mean valueBiochemistry (medical)Diagnostic testEmergency departmentUrgent testingVenous ThromboembolismGeneral MedicineReference valuesFamily medicineconsensus document; emergency medicine; laboratory testing; urgent testingEmergency medicineEmergency medicineWounds and Injuriesbusinesslcsh:Medicine (General)Emergency Service Hospitaldescription
Abstract Background: The mainstay of patient-oriented laboratory testing in emergency settings entails selecting a number and the type of tests according to valid criteria of appropriateness. Since the pattern of urgent tests requesting is variable across different institutions, we designed a joined survey between the Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) and the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) for reaching tentative consensus about the most informative diagnostic tests in emergency settings. Methods: A survey, containing the most commonly ordered urgent laboratory tests and the relative clinical indications, was disseminated to eight relevant members of AcEMC and eight relevant members of SIBioC. All contributors were asked to provide numerical scores for the different laboratory parameters, where 1 indicated “strongly recommended”, 2 “recommended in specific circumstances”, and 3 “strongly discouraged”. The mean results of the survey were presented as the mean of responders’ values, and the parameters were finally classified as “strongly recommended” (mean value, 1.00–1.49), “weakly recommended” (mean value, 1.50–1.99), “discouraged” (mean value, 2.00–2.49) and “strongly discouraged” (mean value, 2.50–3.00). Results: The results of the survey allowed defining a hierarchy of priority, wherein 24 tests were “strongly recommended”. The use of five common tests was instead “strongly discouraged”. For 16 additional parameters in the list, the consensus ranged between “weakly recommended” and “discouraged”. Conclusions: We hope that results presented in this joint AcEMC-SIBioC consensus document may help harmonizing panel of tests and requesting patterns in emergency setting, at least at a national level.
| year | journal | country | edition | language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) |