Introduction: Laboratory information is generated when a meaning is given to certain data. This is usually achieved by comparing a laboratory test result with the reference range/decisional limit (RL), and by providing consultation for the interpretation of data, advice, and follow-up testing.
Aim: In this paper, we investigate factors affecting the conversion of data into useful information with regard to biochemical markers of myocardial damage (CK-MB mass, myoglobin, and troponins), in view of their importance in detecting myocardial necrosis. Our aim was to report results obtained in order to verify the consensus between laboratories with reference to interpretative comments and the reference ranges/decisional limits added to clinical reports.
Methods: A questionnaire and simulated medical reports on three different patients were distributed to participants (94 laboratories) in the 2001 cycle of the External Quality Assessment (EQA). Moreover, we analysed 113 medical reports sent by laboratories during the most recent EQA cycle 2002, and checked the number of different RLs used, both independent and within the diagnostic system used. We also compared each laboratory result of a control sample, obtained in the 2002 cycle, with declared RL in order to verify the clinical significance of results ("normal" or "pathological") for troponin I and CK-MB.
Results: Our findings show that few laboratories regularly add interpretative comments to medical reports. On the contrary, they cooperate with clinicians who require consultation, advice, and information for the appropriate use of biochemical markers. There is a general consensus among participants regarding probable syndromes suggested by the interpretation of the same result and most laboratories also agree on further investigations to be carried out for several diseases. Concerning RL, the data demonstrate that numerous different RLs are used to report the results of the biochemical markers evaluated, both when considered independent of the diagnostic system used and within the diagnostic system used.
Discussion and conclusions: The biochemist does not have the opportunity to verify the efficacy of the interpretation that he/she provided. An audit of this activity is therefore required to allow the laboratory to monitor its own performance and to assure good practice. The evaluation of interpretative comments, through specific surveys, should be a prime objective of EQA organisers. Well-designed EQA programs can, moreover, support laboratories in establishing appropriate RL and in verifying the clinical significance of their results with respect to that of other laboratories. Our survey on interpretative comments and the analysis of the RLs further demonstrate how laboratory medicine can contribute to the objective evaluation of the patients' health status.