Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 27: 5-9, 1981;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sheiner, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sheiner, L. B.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 27, 5-9, Copyright © 1981 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

A clinical evaluation of various delta check methods

LA Wheeler and LB Sheiner

To evaluate the performance of delta check techniques, we analyzed 707 unselected pairs of continuous-flow test results, using three different delta check methods. If any of the test results (plus the urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio and the anion gap) failed one of the checks, the reason for the failure was sought by examining subsequent test results, retesting specimens, and (or) reviewing te patient's chart. Each delta check failure was accordingly classified as a true or false positive. The percentage of positives we judged to be true positives ranged from 5 to 29%. Each of the three methods had test types with low and high percentages of true positives. We conclude that with the delta check methods one can detect errors otherwise overlooked, but at the cost of investigating many false positives, because, in the population we studied, disease processes or therapy often caused large changes in a series of test results for a patient.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1981 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.