Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

What is a significant difference between sequential laboratory results?

W S A Smellie1

  • 1Clinical Laboratory, General Hospital, Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham DL146AD, UK.

Journal of Clinical Pathology
|October 17, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Demand management and test request rationalization.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2012
Same author

Time to harmonise common laboratory test profiles.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2012
Same author

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 13.

Journal of clinical pathology·2011
Same author

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 14.

Journal of clinical pathology·2011
Same author

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 12.

Journal of clinical pathology·2010
Same author

Intravenous fluid therapy - an under-recognized patient safety opportunity.

Annals of clinical biochemistry·2009
Same journal

Defining biochemical, pathological and molecular factors prognostic in terms of disease control and survival in high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma: a scoping review.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

MILGDF: a multi-task, instance-level supervised model for oral squamous cell carcinoma integrating local-global attention and dynamic decision fusion.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Paediatric B-lymphoblastic leukaemia with low peripheral blasts: a potential diagnostic pitfall.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

MRI-targeted versus systematic needle core biopsies in prostate cancer: a patient-based analysis of potential diagnostic and biologic underestimation.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Basal plasmacytosis and eosinophilia for distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from gastrointestinal tuberculosis on mucosal biopsy.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Assay-dependent variability in free thyroxine (FT4): differential interference related to immunoassay design in a patient with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
See all related articles

Laboratory results often lack clear confidence intervals, making interpretation difficult. This review explores result variability and suggests ways to improve understanding of numerical test significance for better clinical decisions.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Laboratory Medicine
  • Medical Diagnostics

Background:

  • Numerical laboratory results are often reported as absolute values, obscuring inherent uncertainty and confidence intervals.
  • Interpretation of laboratory tests involves balancing clinical context with the potential significance of numerical results, making it an inexact science.
  • Limited user knowledge of result variability complicates the interpretation of sequential laboratory data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review factors contributing to numerical laboratory result variability.
  • To examine the implications of result variability for interpreting sequential laboratory results.
  • To propose strategies for addressing the challenge of result uncertainty in routine practice and electronic delivery.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Literature review focusing on factors influencing laboratory result variability.
  • Analysis of implications for interpreting differences between sequential laboratory results.
  • Consideration of options for providing guidance on result significance.

Main Results:

  • Result variability is influenced by multiple factors, impacting the interpretation of absolute numerical values.
  • Understanding confidence intervals and result variability is crucial for accurate clinical decision-making.
  • Current routine practice inadequately addresses the uncertainty associated with numerical laboratory results.

Conclusions:

  • Laboratories should provide more guidance on the likelihood of a result being clinically significant.
  • There is a need for discussion on best practices for communicating result uncertainty, compatible with electronic delivery.
  • Addressing result variability is essential for improving the interpretation and utility of laboratory data in clinical practice.