Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Laboratory testing in the emergency department: an Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) consensus report
Authors: Lippi, Giuseppe 
Panteghini, Mauro
Bernardini, Sergio
Bonfanti, Laura
Carraro, Paolo 
Casagranda, Ivo
Cavazza, Mario
Ceriotti, Ferruccio
Ciaccio, Marcello
Coen, Daniele
Giavarina, Davide 
Giostra, Fabrizio
Paolillo, Ciro
Plebani, Mario 
Ricci, Giorgio 
Cervellin, Gianfranco 
Keywords: consensus document;emergency medicine;laboratory testing;urgent testing
Mesh headings: Clinical Laboratory Techniques;Consensus;Societies, Medical
Secondary Mesh headings: Creatine Kinase;Emergency Service, Hospital;Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products;Humans;Reference Values;Surveys and Questionnaires;Venous Thromboembolism;Wounds and Injuries
Issue Date: 2018
Journal: Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. The mainstay of patient-oriented laboratory testing in emergency settings entails selecting a number and the type of tests according to valid criteria of appropriateness. Since the pattern of urgent tests requesting is variable across different institutions, we designed a joined survey between the Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) and the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) for reaching tentative consensus about the most informative diagnostic tests in emergency settings. A survey, containing the most commonly ordered urgent laboratory tests and the relative clinical indications, was disseminated to eight relevant members of AcEMC and eight relevant members of SIBioC. All contributors were asked to provide numerical scores for the different laboratory parameters, where 1 indicated "strongly recommended", 2 "recommended in specific circumstances", and 3 "strongly discouraged". The mean results of the survey were presented as the mean of responders' values, and the parameters were finally classified as "strongly recommended" (mean value, 1.00-1.49), "weakly recommended" (mean value, 1.50-1.99), "discouraged" (mean value, 2.00-2.49) and "strongly discouraged" (mean value, 2.50-3.00). The results of the survey allowed defining a hierarchy of priority, wherein 24 tests were "strongly recommended". The use of five common tests was instead "strongly discouraged". For 16 additional parameters in the list, the consensus ranged between "weakly recommended" and "discouraged". We hope that results presented in this joint AcEMC-SIBioC consensus document may help harmonizing panel of tests and requesting patterns in emergency setting, at least at a national level.
ISSN: 14346621
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-0077
Appears in Collections:Articles

Show full item record

Citations 50

checked on Aug 31, 2020


checked on Nov 24, 2021

Page view(s) 20

checked on Nov 29, 2021

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.