CONTEXT: A statistically valid inventory of the distribution, both geographic and by laboratory type, of clinical and anatomical laboratory testing in the United States is needed to assess the impact of the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and to provide information for other health care and public health policy decisions. OBJECTIVE: To present initial US laboratory testing volume data compiled by the National Inventory of Clinical Laboratory Testing Services. DESIGN: Stratified random sample of laboratories performing testing in 1996 with data on the number of laboratory tests performed, identified by method and analyte. Data were collected by field tabulators (moderate- or high-complexity laboratories) or through a mail/telephone survey (waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories) for each site. PARTICIPANTS: Laboratories that were enrolled in the 1996 Online Certification Survey and Reporting System, maintained by the US Health Care Finance Administration, and that performed laboratory testing during 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Laboratory testing distribution for 1996 in the United States by analyte, method, and specimen type. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 79% provided data from 757 moderate- or high-complexity laboratories and 1322 waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories. The estimated total US testing volume for 1996 was 7.25 +/- 1.09 billion tests. Laboratories performing complex testing, defined as greater than 16 method/analyte/specimen type combinations, comprised 16% of the US laboratories by survey site, but performed 80% (95% confidence limits, 43% to 100%) of the testing volume. Glucose analysis was the most frequently performed test. Automated hematology and chemistry analyzers were the most frequently used methods. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically valid, consistent survey of the distribution of US laboratory testing was obtained. Simple analysis of these data by laboratory type and geographic region can provide insights into where laboratory testing is performed. The study design allows extensions that will facilitate collection of additional data of importance to public health and medical care delivery.
CONTEXT: A statistically valid inventory of the distribution, both geographic and by laboratory type, of clinical and anatomical laboratory testing in the United States is needed to assess the impact of the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and to provide information for other health care and public health policy decisions. OBJECTIVE: To present initial US laboratory testing volume data compiled by the National Inventory of Clinical Laboratory Testing Services. DESIGN: Stratified random sample of laboratories performing testing in 1996 with data on the number of laboratory tests performed, identified by method and analyte. Data were collected by field tabulators (moderate- or high-complexity laboratories) or through a mail/telephone survey (waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories) for each site. PARTICIPANTS: Laboratories that were enrolled in the 1996 Online Certification Survey and Reporting System, maintained by the US Health Care Finance Administration, and that performed laboratory testing during 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Laboratory testing distribution for 1996 in the United States by analyte, method, and specimen type. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 79% provided data from 757 moderate- or high-complexity laboratories and 1322 waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories. The estimated total US testing volume for 1996 was 7.25 +/- 1.09 billion tests. Laboratories performing complex testing, defined as greater than 16 method/analyte/specimen type combinations, comprised 16% of the US laboratories by survey site, but performed 80% (95% confidence limits, 43% to 100%) of the testing volume. Glucose analysis was the most frequently performed test. Automated hematology and chemistry analyzers were the most frequently used methods. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically valid, consistent survey of the distribution of US laboratory testing was obtained. Simple analysis of these data by laboratory type and geographic region can provide insights into where laboratory testing is performed. The study design allows extensions that will facilitate collection of additional data of importance to public health and medical care delivery.
Authors: Shahram Shahangian; Todd D Alspach; J Rex Astles; Ajay Yesupriya; William K Dettwyler Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Tom Greene; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Gerald J Beck; Marc Froissart; Lee L Hamm; Julia B Lewis; Michael Mauer; Gerjan J Navis; Michael W Steffes; Paul W Eggers; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 8.860