Critical result communication response to Piva and Plebani: Best practices for communicating critical values

摘要

Drs Piva and Plebani ask for an explanation for the difference between the 2010 technical report prepared by the CDC Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) Team [1] and the more recent systematic review findings reported by this team [2]. Evidence for both the technical report and published paper was reviewed by the LMBP expert panel, although the expert panel was invited to revisit its initial ratings for both the individual study quality and observed effect sizes. Several of the study quality and effect size ratings were adjusted accordingly. In addition, two studies not available at the time the technical report was prepared became available in time to be included in the published review. These factors resulted in changes to the best practice recommendations.