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


     


Clinical Chemistry 30: 69-76, 1984;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Albert, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kulbertus, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Albert, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kulbertus, H. E.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 30, 69-76, Copyright © 1984 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

On the interpretation of serial laboratory measurements in acute myocardial infarction

A Albert, EK Harris, JP Chapelle, C Heusghem and HE Kulbertus

Serial laboratory determinations are now routinely performed on patients admitted to intensive-care units. Adequate interpretation of such cumulative information for clinical decision-making purposes is a challenging problem. We describe a statistical method for predicting-- sequentially as the data become available--the patient's outcome, death or survival. Thus, the method goes beyond previously reported techniques that base such prediction on only a single multivariate observation. The method has been applied to daily measurements of serum urea and lactate dehydrogenase, performed during one week on patients hospitalized in the coronary-care unit with acute myocardial infarction. Two baseline variables were also included in the dynamic risk index so derived: the age of the patient and the number of previous myocardial infarctions recorded on admission. We also discuss the problems of selecting the most-predictive laboratory tests and of determining for each test the amount of past data needed to achieve satisfactory prediction. We distinguish between global evaluation of the dynamic risk index obtained (in terms of specificity and sensitivity) and individual interpretation (in terms of posterior/prior probability ratio) of a given risk score for a particular patient. The approach described may contribute to more effective use of results of repeated laboratory tests on critically ill patients.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1984 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.