policy for established norms and ranges used to interpret and report clinical laboratory results?
364687
Every medical laboratory is to some extent unique. This lab uses that reagent supplier for blood tests, and some other supplier for tissue tests, and so on. Another lab uses a different collection of suppliers. And, different labs use different procedures to some extent (eg, different workloads of facility layouts). And there are often several different equipment vendors, whose equipment works slightly differently, using different operational sequences and check points.\n\nSo, the very same sample (at least taken from a single larger original sample anyway) will give slightly different results in every lab for most any particular test. In order to lessen the chance of confusion, labs report a 'norm' value for many tests to tell those interpreting the test that our values run <a little higher than the literature reports...> or something similar. They also usually supply a 'normal range' for each test as a courtesy to whoever has to look at the reports; people vary quite a lot, and this value might be acceptable in you but not in someone else quite apart from any laboratory norm differences from other labs.\n\nSince the values in clinical lab reports are often used to decide questions of diagnosis and treatment, it's pretty important (actually vital) to be certain the lab's results are as claimed. And certainly that any errors which can be caught are actually identified. There is a small industry of calibrated sample suppliers and operational testing to ensure this. \n\n==========\nblood glucose testing example\n\nTake, for instance, the home blood glucose monitors used by many diabetics. These generally come with a small bottle of test solution (or control solution, depending on who is choosing names). This is carefully concocted 'fake blood' with a pre-determined concentration of glucose. By using it (if it hasn't partially evaporated or deteriorated), one can test the operation of the glucose meter/test strip combination, qualitatively -- and to some extent quantitatively. A similar dodge is used in actual laboratories. To avoid 'fudging' in the labs themselves (a kind of Caesar's wife's reputation sort of thing), test reagents are generally not made locally, but rather in a central facility.\n\n======\nregulation, licensing, accreditation\n\nLabs are also supervised by industry accrediting bodies rather like colleges, and almost always have statutory and regulatory supervision (mandatory licensing, for example). \n\n======\nmalfeasance\n\nDespite all of this, it's still possible for mendacious lab operators to perform poorly. Especially in circumstances which require some subjective evaluation. A recent example in the US, though not exactly a laboratory issue, is the exposure of what seems to have been a litigation fraud involving lung diseases caused by mining or industrial operations. Attorneys have advertised for plaintiffs, provided testing for them, and organized suits for damages based on the results. The tests (X-rays and the interpretation thereof, primarily) were performed by  independent contracting physicians and X-ray labs, but it seems that several folks noticed that business depended on the findings. There were an awfully large number of folks found to have lung disease who may not have had it all, or at least not the disease for which damages were being sought. Just who arranged for it all, beyond a small number of doctors who made quick diagnoses from medical files, usually without actually meeting patients, is not clear. The lawyers certainly benefited in that they found clients for whom ot work. The patients benefited, though often not very much as individual settlements were often not large. As the situation is clarified, we may learn more as to who organized it, if there is indeed a single organizing brain. \n\nPsychological testing is not very lab based, but the same (or something similar) kind of problem has been noticed in exert evaluations
202285
See:\n\nhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000949.htm
96086
What's your question?  Applied statistics are critical for the successful evaluation of lab studies.  Without it  interpretations of experimental results are subjective.  Of course, an over reliance on statistics is just as dangerous as many statistics show at the end of the day is testing the probability of an event occuring against the random probability of chance.
265499
One line of a 24 hour urine is not indicative of anything.  The level, as you have described it, is normal.  A 24 hour urine study has to be put into the context of the patient's history, exam, and other lab tests to help deliver any type of diagnosis.  \n\nThis is a great question to bring up with the ordering physician, who has a duty to interpret your test results and help you understand them.
420718
ANCOVA is a regression/ANOVA technique. as a result, it assumes a interval level (or higher) response variable. It also assumes a normal error term to the model, and random and independent observations. Failure to meet these conditions by the data, would make such techniques inappropriate. MANCOVA, like all multivariate techniques, requires all the above, plus sufficiently large sample sizes to accurately estimate a variance for all cells (at least 3 per, but much more is helpful to reduce Type II error), for each and every response variable. Outside of those stipulations, you can use ANCOVA/MANCOVA as the application demands. ANCOVA is meant to be used as a blocking criteria, either for correctly handling dummy-coded categorical response data in a multiple regression analysis, or handling continuous data in an ANOVA setting. An example of the former would be, say, an examination of pay vs. age, blocked on gender. An example of the later would be for introducing pre-test scores as a continuous variable into an ANOVA of post-test score versus treatment groups and other criteria. Without more information on the application, that's all I can tell you.
766572
Interpreting your lab results can be confusing.  Since there are multiple tests done in hematology, i'm not sure which ones you had done.  I'm assuming you had a CBC, white and red counts, hematocrit, cholesterol, etc.\n\nUsually there are two columns.  The left hand column is your result.  On the right is the data range.  If your results fall below or above the range, they should show as abnormal.  If they fall within the range, everything is normal.\n\nThere are several websites that can give you more detailed information about your tests, and what an abnormal result could mean.\n\nI'm including a very user-friendly link that can help you find the answers.\n\nHope this helps!
197372
the standard susceptibility zone would depend on the bacterial species being tested, as well as the site of specimen collection. for example, different zone sizes for susceptibility are considered for urine specimens vs. blood culture specimens, as the concentration of the antibiotic needed will depend upon the area of the body being treated, as drug concentrations differ in various areas of the body. also, it would depend on the sulfonamide. generally, i believe the zone size for susceptibility of sulfamethoxazole (sp?) is between 17-21, but can't remember which range we use in my lab.
73561
http://directory.ucsf.edu/people_result_set.jsp
1041787
I think you are talking about a Lab Report. You start with a hypothesis followed by a objective, steps taken, notes, and a conclusion (say if your hypothesis was correct and if your objective was completed).
114426
procedures or guidelines
524680
The doctor who ordered this blood test should be able to walk through this with you.  At the very least, there should be a nursing line that you can call and ask.  \n\nMost blood results I have received have shown right on the print out what is too low, too high, or within the normal range.  This is a good starting place, but anything abnormal should really be discussed with your healthcare practitioner.
852174
Sounds like a typo.  Call the lab that performed the test.
469125
A link to a protocol from Alpco Diagnostics:\n\nhttp://www.alpco.com/pdfs/30/30-2201.pdf
704746
Try the National Institutes of Health:\n\nhttp://www.nih.gov/\n\nPut your question (Antistrepolysis) into the search box.
184404
I usually prefer not to use it; anyway very many things are based on statistics: most branches of medicine, TV programs' shares, quality control of any little object you buy...\n\nIf I find others, I'll update the answer.
560950
Variations in measurement attributable to peoples' behaviour.
710499
Validation is a process that consists of at least four distinct steps:\n\n1.   software validation, \n2.   hardware (instrumentation) validation/qualification, \n3.   method validation \n4.   system suitability \n\nThe process begins with validated software and a qualified system. Then a validated method using the qualified system can be developed. Finally it is all wrapped together, in a total validation, using system suitability. Each step is critical to the overall success of the process\n\nMETHOD VALIDATION should include: \nLinearity: the range of linearity is checked by injections of 5-6 concentrations of the reference standards (in triplicates) below and above the expected concentration of the \nsamples (20%-120%). The slope and intercept are determined. r >= 0.999, and the range of linearity (in conc. terms) is established. \n\nAccuracy is measured as the (amount measured)/(amount claimed) in the following procedures: \nIn drug formulations: a standard is added to the placebo (80%, 100%, 120%), and the recovery is measured \nRecovery from sample preparation procedures (such as dilution, extraction or filtration) should be established. \n\nSolution stability of the samples (A fresh sample is compared to one which was left in solution for the entire duration of the test procedure). \n\n Intermediate precision or ruggedness: 5 measurements of the first step of accuracy under two different occasions (two columns, or two operators). \n\nLimit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ): \nThe intercept from the linearity test (in section 5.a) can be used for LOQ measurements (intercept x 5 or 10). \nAnalysis of repeatability at the quantification limit, using both sample and reference standard. Concentrations that yield 10-15% RSD will be acceptable as LOQ concentrations. \n\n Robustness of the chromatographic method: variables in this test can be the following: column batch #, solvent strength in the mobile phase, temperature, flow rate, pH of the mobile phase, ionic strength in the mobile phase, sample diluent, \ninjection volume, wavelength of detection. The parameter measured: response, retention time, selectivity and/or resolution. \n\n=)