Lab Med Online.  2022 Oct;12(4):292-303. 10.47429/lmo.2022.12.4.292.

Current Status of Reporting Units and Unit Sizes of Quantitative Test Results of Clinical Chemistry in Korea

• Cho J
• Jeong TD
• Moon SY
• Chung JW
• Nam Y
• Lee SG
• Lim J
• Cho EJ
• Choi HJ
• Han M
• Kim S

• KMID: 2538617
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.47429/lmo.2022.12.4.292

Abstract

Background
The units and unit sizes of quantitative test results vary between laboratories and have not yet been standardized or harmonized in most cases. This study aimed to investigate the current status of units and unit sizes of clinical chemistry in Korea and propose standardized ones.
Methods
The Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service and College of American Pathologists survey data and textbooks (Tietz 6th ed. and Henry 24th ed.) were reviewed. Members of the Korean Society of Clinical Chemistry were surveyed on 99 items using an online survey platform, and a total of 99 institutions responded. For some items, simulations were conducted for standardized unit size proposals.
Results
The units were consistent in all four references for a total of 54 items (54.5%), whereas, the unit sizes were consistent for 28 items (28.3%). In the questionnaire, 93 items (93.9%) accounted for more than 80% of institutions utilizing the most frequently used unit but only 30 items (30.3%) for unit sizes. As a result of the simulation for the number of digits proposal, it was found that the number of digits currently in use was acceptable for all three participating laboratories.
Conclusions
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the current situation and simulation of the units and unit sizes in clinical chemistry in Korea through a literature review. These data are expected to be used as a basis for the setting of units and unit sizes for reporting quantitative test results in the future.

Keyword

Unit; Unit size; Questionnaire survey; Simulation; Quantitative test; Clinical chemistry

Reference

1. Hawkins RC, Johnson RN. 1990; The significance of significant figures. Clin Chem. 36:824. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/36.5.824a. PMID: 2338006.

2. Hawkins RC, Badrick T, Hickman PE. 2007; Over-reporting significant figures-a significant problem? Clin Chim Acta. 375:158–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2006.06.008. PMID: 16839534.

3. Straseski JA, Whale C, Wilson A, Strathmann FG. 2016; The significance of reporting to the thousandths place: Figuring out the laboratory limitations. Pract Lab Med. 7:1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.plabm.2016.11.001. PMID: 28856212. PMCID: PMC5575378.

4. Plebani M. 2016; Harmonization in laboratory medicine: Requests, samples, measurements and reports. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 53:184–96. DOI: 10.3109/10408363.2015.1116851. PMID: 26667798.

5. Baron DN, Broughton PM, Cohen M, Lansley TS, Lewis SM, Shinton NK. 1974; The use of SI units in reporting results obtained in hospital laboratories. Ann Clin Biochem. 11:194–202. DOI: 10.1177/000456327401100154. PMID: 4441056.

6. Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service. 2021. Annual Report on the External Quality Assessment Scheme for Clinical Chemistry in Korea (2021). Seoul, Korea: Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service (KEQAS).

7. Wu AHB, Christenson RH. 2013; Analytical and assay issues for use of cardiac troponin testing for risk stratification in primary care. Clin Biochem. 46:969–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.04.013. PMID: 23623945.

8. Fraser CG, Fogarty Y. 1989; Interpreting laboratory results. BMJ. 298:1659–60. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.298.6689.1659. PMID: 2503170. PMCID: PMC1836738.

9. Sadler WA, Murray LM, Turner JG. 1992; Minimum distinguishable difference in concentration: a clinically oriented translation of assay precision summaries. Clin Chem. 38:1773–8. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/38.9.1773. PMID: 1526013.

10. Badrick T, Wilson SR, Dimeski G, Hickman PE. 2004; Objective determination of appropriate reporting intervals. Ann Clin Biochem. 41:385–90. DOI: 10.1258/0004563041731583. PMID: 15333190.

11. College of American Pathologists. 2021. Surveys and Anatomic Pathology Education Programs-Laboratory Quality Solutions (2021). Northfield. Il, USA: College of American Pathologists (CAP).

12. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2021. Medical Care Benefit Costs of the National Health Insurance in Korea (March 2021) [건강보험요양급여비용 2021년3월판]. Wonju, Korea: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA).

13. Rifai N, Horvath AR, editors. 2018. Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics. 6th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

14. McPherson RA, Pincus MR, editors. 2021. Henry’s Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 24th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier.

15. Clinical, Laboratory Standard Institute. 2014. User Verification of Precision and Estimation of Bias; Approved Guideline-Third Edition. CLSI document EP15-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

16. Clinical, Laboratory Standard Institute. 2004. Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline-Second Edition. CLSI document EP05-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

17. Koenig W, Sund M, Fröhlich M, Fischer HG, Löwel H, Döring A, et al. 1999; C-Reactive protein, a sensitive marker of inflammation, predicts future risk of coronary heart disease in initially healthy middle-aged men: results from the MONICA (Monitoring Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease) Augsburg Cohort Study, 1984 to 1992. Circulation. 99:237–42. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.99.2.237. PMID: 9892589.

18. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. 2005; Distribution of C-reactive protein values in the United States. N Engl J Med. 352:1611–3. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200504143521525. PMID: 15829550.

19. Lee YJ, Kim JM, Park DS. 2010; Evaluation of analytical measurement ranges of three full range C-reactive protein tests using immunoturbidimetric assay. Korean J Lab Med. 30:9–16. DOI: 10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.1.9. PMID: 20197716.

20. Sung HJ, Kim JH, Park R, Lee KR, Kwon OH. 2002; Evaluation of Denka-Sei-ken turbidimetric high-sensitivity C-reactive protein assay. Clin Chem Lab Med. 40:840–5. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2002.146. PMID: 12392316.

21. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, et al. 2021; 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 42:1289–367. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575. PMID: 32860058.

22. Wu AHB, Christenson RH, Greene DN, Jaffe AS, Kavsak PA, Ordonez-Llanos J, et al. 2018; Clinical Laboratory Practice Recommendations for the Use of Cardiac Troponin in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Expert Opinion from the Academy of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and the Task Force on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Bio-Markers of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem. 64:645–55. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.277186. PMID: 29343532.

23. Apple FS, Sandoval Y, Jaffe AS, Ordonez-Llanos J. 2017; Cardiac Troponin Assays: Guide to Understanding Analytical Characteristics and Their Impact on Clinical Care. Clin Chem. 63:73–81. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.255109. PMID: 28062612.

24. Tate JR, Myers GL. 2016; Harmonization of Clinical Laboratory Test Results. EJIFCC. 27:5–14.

25. Eisenberg ML, Davies BJ, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Carroll PR. 2010; Prognostic implications of an undetectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen level after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 57:622–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.077. PMID: 19375843. PMCID: PMC2930030.

26. Vesely S, Jarolim L, Schmidt M, Minarik I, Dusek P, Babjuk M. 2013; Parameters derived from the postoperative decline in ultrasensitive PSA improve the prediction of radical prostatectomy outcome. World J Urol. 31:299–304. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0892-3. PMID: 22684375.

27. Badrick T, Hawkins RC. 2015; The relationship between measurement uncertainty and reporting interval. Ann Clin Biochem. 52:177–9. DOI: 10.1177/0004563214531558. PMID: 24818615.