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


     


Clinical Chemistry 33: 100-102, 1987;
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 Meites, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bubis, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meites, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bubis, S.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 33, 100-102, Copyright © 1987 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Diagnostic quality of laboratory tests as evaluated by graphic comparison of "first test" data, with Reye's syndrome "workup" assays as a model

S Meites and S Bubis

In the absence of predictive values for quantitative tests ordered in particular diseases, we approximated the comparative diagnostic merit of such tests by graphically reviewing hospital experience with those diseases. As a model, we examined the usefulness of the five chemical tests most commonly ordered on admission as part of the "Reye's workup": aspartate and alanine aminotransferases, NH3, prothrombin time, and glucose. We expressed the data as multiples of the upper reference limit (URL) for each of these liver-function tests, setting the URL high enough to overcome method- and age-related differences. Graphs of "first test" data from 141 patients show the great sensitivity of the two aminotransferase assays for Reye's syndrome: only 2% of the results fall below their URL, whereas about 32% of NH3 determinations and 27% of prothrombin times fall below their URL. Thus measuring the aminotransferases apparently is at least 10 times more useful than the other three analytes as "first tests." Current record keeping does not provide a ready means for assessing the specificity of these tests to determine the number of false positives, but does provide useful data for assessing sensitivity and false negatives.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.