Ronald George Hauser1,2, Douglas B Quine1,3, Alex Ryder4,5. 1. Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Main Laboratory, Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT, USA. 4. Children's Foundation Research Institute, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics and Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Abstract
Objective: Clinical laboratories in the United States do not have an explicit result standard to report the 7 billion laboratory tests results they produce each year. The absence of standardized test results creates inefficiencies and ambiguities for secondary data users. We developed and tested a tool to standardize the results of laboratory tests in a large, multicenter clinical data warehouse. Methods: Laboratory records, each of which consisted of a laboratory result and a test identifier, from 27 diverse facilities were captured from 2000 through 2015. Each record underwent a standardization process to convert the original result into a format amenable to secondary data analysis. The standardization process included the correction of typos, normalization of categorical results, separation of inequalities from numbers, and conversion of numbers represented by words (eg, "million") to numerals. Quality control included expert review. Results: We obtained 1.266 × 109 laboratory records and standardized 1.252 × 109 records (98.9%). Of the unique unstandardized records (78.887 × 103), most appeared <5 times (96%, eg, typos), did not have a test identifier (47%), or belonged to an esoteric test with <100 results (2%). Overall, these 3 reasons accounted for nearly all unstandardized results (98%). Conclusion: Current results suggest that the tool is both scalable and generalizable among diverse clinical laboratories. Based on observed trends, the tool will require ongoing maintenance to stay current with new tests and result formats. Future work to develop and implement an explicit standard for test results would reduce the need to retrospectively standardize test results.
Objective: Clinical laboratories in the United States do not have an explicit result standard to report the 7 billion laboratory tests results they produce each year. The absence of standardized test results creates inefficiencies and ambiguities for secondary data users. We developed and tested a tool to standardize the results of laboratory tests in a large, multicenter clinical data warehouse. Methods: Laboratory records, each of which consisted of a laboratory result and a test identifier, from 27 diverse facilities were captured from 2000 through 2015. Each record underwent a standardization process to convert the original result into a format amenable to secondary data analysis. The standardization process included the correction of typos, normalization of categorical results, separation of inequalities from numbers, and conversion of numbers represented by words (eg, "million") to numerals. Quality control included expert review. Results: We obtained 1.266 × 109 laboratory records and standardized 1.252 × 109 records (98.9%). Of the unique unstandardized records (78.887 × 103), most appeared <5 times (96%, eg, typos), did not have a test identifier (47%), or belonged to an esoteric test with <100 results (2%). Overall, these 3 reasons accounted for nearly all unstandardized results (98%). Conclusion: Current results suggest that the tool is both scalable and generalizable among diverse clinical laboratories. Based on observed trends, the tool will require ongoing maintenance to stay current with new tests and result formats. Future work to develop and implement an explicit standard for test results would reduce the need to retrospectively standardize test results.
Authors: A W Forrey; C J McDonald; G DeMoor; S M Huff; D Leavelle; D Leland; T Fiers; L Charles; B Griffin; F Stalling; A Tullis; K Hutchins; J Baenziger Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Marsha A Raebel; Kevin Haynes; Tiffany S Woodworth; Gwyn Saylor; Elizabeth Cavagnaro; Kara O Coughlin; Lesley H Curtis; Mark G Weiner; Patrick Archdeacon; Jeffrey S Brown Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Amy C Justice; Elizabeth Dombrowski; Joseph Conigliaro; Shawn L Fultz; Deborah Gibson; Tamra Madenwald; Joseph Goulet; Michael Simberkoff; Adeel A Butt; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Cynthia L Gibert; Kris Ann K Oursler; Sheldon Brown; David A Leaf; Matthew B Goetz; Kendall Bryant Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Basile Njei; Denise Esserman; Supriya Krishnan; Michael Ohl; Janet P Tate; Ronald G Hauser; Tamar Taddei; Joseph Lim; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ronald George Hauser; Ankur Bhargava; Cynthia A Brandt; Maggie Chartier; Marissa M Maier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.752