1887

Chapter 47 : Clinical and Evidence-Based Research in the Clinical Laboratory

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $30.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Clinical and Evidence-Based Research in the Clinical Laboratory, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817282/9781555817275_Chap47-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817282/9781555817275_Chap47-2.gif

Abstract:

Laboratory interventions are becoming more data driven, outcome oriented, and evidence based. As such, laboratory professionals need more background in experimental study design and biostatistical methods, so that laboratory data can be used to generate outcomes data from quality. Several types of patient-oriented research (POR) are found in academic and non-university-based healthcare systems such as (i) mechanistic (physiological) studies of human disease, therapeutic studies, and clinical trials. An important translational step is the translation of research findings from POR and clinical trials into daily clinical practice. Thus, POR plays an important role in the translation of basic research findings and clinical trial data to improve medical practice and patient care. This chapter aims to acquaint the clinical laboratory with the basic types of experimental approaches used by clinical (patient-oriented) researchers, and defines the basic terms typically used in clinical research. It describes the concept of systematic review of literature, and describes initiatives occurring for evidence-based laboratory medicine. The laboratory medicine best practices (LMBP) initiative at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adapts evidence-based medicine (EBM) concepts to clinical laboratory practice and quality improvement (QI) studies. Within LMBP, systematic reviews can provide information to support decision making for health outcomes achieved from use of a diagnostic test and for additional outcomes that influence cost and quality of patient care.

Citation: Wolk D. 2014. Clinical and Evidence-Based Research in the Clinical Laboratory, p 832-848. In Garcia L (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management, Second Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817282.ch47

Key Concept Ranking

Clinical Trials
0.704322
Clinical Research
0.5161674
Staphylococcus aureus
0.48242262
Antimicrobial Therapy
0.4020448
0.704322
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817282.chap47
1. Anello, C.,, and J. L. Fleiss. 1995. Exploratory or analytic metaanalysis: should we distinguish between them? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48:109116. [PubMed]
2. Asher, H. B. 1976. Causal Modeling. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
3. Atiqi, R.,, I. C. van Iersel,, and T. J. Cleophas. 2009. Accuracy assessments of quantitative diagnostic tests for clinical research. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 47:153158. [PubMed]
4. Begg, C. G. 1987. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat. Med. 6:411423. [PubMed]
5.Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. 2001. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69:8995. [PubMed][CrossRef]
6. Campbell, G. 1994. Advances in statistical methodology for the evaluation of diagnostic and laboratory tests. Stat. Med. 13:499508. [PubMed]
7. Campbell, G. 2004. Some statistical and regulatory issues in the evaluation of genetic and genomic tests. J. Biopharm. Stat. 14:539552. [PubMed][CrossRef]
8. Christenson, R. H.,, S. R. Snyder,, C. S. Shaw,, J. H. Derzon,, R. S. Black,, D. Mass,, P. Epner,, A. M. Favoretto,, and E. B. Liebow. 2011. Laboratory medicine best practices: systematic evidence review and evaluation methods for quality improvement. Clin. Chem. 57:816825. [PubMed][CrossRef]
9. Chu, H.,, L. Nie,, S. R. Cole,, and C. Poole. 2009. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: alternative parameterizations and model selection. Stat. Med. 28:23842399. [PubMed][CrossRef]
10. Com-Nougue, C.,, and C. Rodary. 1987. [Review of statistical procedures for determining the equivalency of two treatments.] Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publique 35:416430. (In French.) [PubMed]
11. Delacour, H.,, A. Servonnet,, A. Perrot,, J. F. Vigezzi,, and J. M. Ramirez. 2005. [ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve: principles and application in biology.] Ann. Biol. Clin. (Paris) 63:145154. (In French.) [PubMed]
12. Dou, Y. H.,, J. K. Du,, H. L. Liu,, and X. D. Shong. 2013. The role of procalcitonin in the identification of invasive fungal infection—a systemic review and meta-analysis. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. doi:pii: S0732–8893(13)00262–9. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.04.023. [Epub ahead of print]
13. Haeusler, G. M.,, F. Carlesse,, and R. S. Phillips. 2013. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive value of serum biomarkers in the assessment of fever during neutropenia in children with cancer. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. doi:10.1097/ INF.0b013e31829ae38d.
14. Hinman, L. M.,, S. M. Huang,, J. Hackett,, W. H. Koch,, P. Y. Love,, G. Pennello,, A. Torres-Cabassa,, and C. Webster. 2006. The drug diagnostic co-development concept paper: commentary from the 3rd FDA-DIA-PWG-PhRMA-BIO Pharmacogenomics Workshop. Pharmacogenomics J. 6:375380. [PubMed][CrossRef]
15. Horvath, A. R.,, and D. Pewsner. 2004. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations. Clin. Chim. Acta 342:2339. [PubMed][CrossRef]
16. Inouye, S. K.,, and D. A. Fiellin. 2005. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research. Ann. Intern. Med. 142:274282. [PubMed]
17. Jagminas, L. 2013. ACP Journal Club. Meta-analysis: procalcitonin- guided antibiotic therapy reduces treatment failure in acute respiratory infection. Ann. Intern. Med. 158:JC5. [PubMed][CrossRef]
18. Leeflang, M.,, J. Reitsma,, R. Scholten,, A. Rutjes,, N. M. Di,, J. Deeks,, and P. Bossuyt. 2007. Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. Clin. Chem. 53:164172. [PubMed][CrossRef]
19. Linnet, K.,, and M. Kondratovich. 2004. Partly nonparametric approach for determining the limit of detection. Clin. Chem. 50:732740. [PubMed][CrossRef]
20. Lyu, Y. X.,, X. C. Yu,, and M. Y. Zhu. 2013. Comparison of the diagnostic value of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 15:290299. [PubMed][CrossRef]
21. Mamdani, M.,, K. Sykora,, P. Li,, S. L. Normand,, D. L. Streiner,, P. C. Austin,, P. A. Rochon,, and G. M. Anderson. 2005. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies. 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 330:960962. [PubMed][CrossRef]
22. McKibbon, K. A.,, and S. Marks. 2001. Posing clinical questions: framing the question for scientific inquiry. AACN Clin. Issues 12:477481. [PubMed]
23. Normand, S. L.,, K. Sykora,, P. Li,, M. Mamdani,, P. A. Rochon,, and G. M. Anderson. 2005. Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies. 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding. BMJ 330:10211023. [PubMed][CrossRef]
24. Peck, C. 2007. Biomarkers for assessment of responses to therapies. In Bridging the Gap between Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of Therapeutic Candidates. National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC.
25. Price, C. P.,, and R. H. Christenson. 2008. Evaluating new diagnostic technologies: perspectives in the UK and US. Clin. Chem. 54:14211423. [PubMed][CrossRef]
26. Rochon, P. A.,, J. H. Gurwitz,, K. Sykora,, M. Mamdani,, D. L. Streiner,, S. Garfinkel,, S. L. Normand,, and G. M. Anderson. 2005. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies. 1. Role and design. BMJ 330:895897. [PubMed][CrossRef]
27. Rudi, K.,, M. Zimonja,, P. Trosvik,, and T. Naes. 2007. Use of multivariate statistics for 16S rRNA gene analysis of microbial communities. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 120:9599. [PubMed][CrossRef]
28. Schuetz, P.,, B. Muller,, M. Christ-Crain,, D. Stolz,, M. Tamm,, L. Bouadma,, C. E. Luyt,, M. Wolff,, J. Chastre,, F. Tubach,, K. B. Kristoffersen,, O. Burkhardt,, T. Welte,, S. Schroeder,, V. Nobre,, L. Wei,, N. Bhatnagar,, H. C. Bucher,, and M. Briel. 2012. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9:CD007498. [PubMed][CrossRef]
29. Seely, E. W.,, and S. Grinspoon,. 2009. Patient-oriented research: clinical pathophysiology and clinical therapeutics, p. 312. In R. David, and H. W. Gordon (ed.), Clinical and Translational Science. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
30. Shapiro, D. E. 1999. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:113134. [PubMed]
31. Shaw, C. S.,, and D. Mass. 2012. Evidence to practice: building the evidence for quality improvement in laboratory medicine. Clin. Leadership Manage. Rev. 26:1620.
32. Shi, L.,, W. Tong,, F. Goodsaid,, F. W. Frueh,, H. Fang,, T. Han,, J. C. Fuscoe,, and D. A. Casciano. 2004. QA/QC: challenges and pitfalls facing the microarray community and regulatory agencies. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 4:761777. [PubMed]
33. Straus, S. E.,, P. Glasziou,, W. S. Richardson,, and R. B. Haynes. 2011. Evidence-Based Medicine: How To Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, New York, NY.
34. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Statistical Guidance on Reporting Results from Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Tests. 3-13-2007. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
35.van der Schouw, Y. T.,, A. L. Verbeek,, and S. H. Ruijs. 1995. Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Invest. Radiol. 30:334340. [PubMed]
36. Wacker, C.,, A. Prkno,, F. M. Brunkhorst,, and P. Schlattmann. 2013. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 13:426435. [PubMed][CrossRef]
37. Wagner, R. F.,, S. V. Beiden,, and C. E. Metz. 2001. Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations. Acad. Radiol. 8:328334. [PubMed][CrossRef]
38. Wolk, D. M.,, and E. M. Marlowe,. 2010. Molecular method verification, p. 861883. In D. H. Persing,, F. C. Tenover,, Y.-W. Tang,, F. S. Nolte,, R. T. Hayden,, and A. Van Belkum (ed.), Molecular Microbiology: Diagnostic Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
39. Wu, M. H.,, C. C. Lin,, S. L. Huang,, H. M. Shih,, C. C. Wang,, C. C. Lee,, and J. Y. Wu. 2013. Can procalcitonin tests aid in identifying bacterial infections associated with influenza pneumonia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 7:349355. [PubMed][CrossRef]
40. Yo, C. H.,, P. S. Hsieh,, S. H. Lee,, J. Y. Wu,, S. S. Chang,, K. C. Tasi,, and C. C. Lee. 2012. Comparison of the test characteristics of procalcitonin to C-reactive protein and leukocytosis for the detection of serious bacterial infections in children presenting with fever without source: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Emerg. Med. 60:591600. [PubMed][CrossRef]
41. Yu, C. W.,, L. I. Juan,, S. C. Hsu,, C. K. Chen,, C. W. Wu,, C. C. Lee,, and J. Y. Wu. 2013. Role of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med. doi:S0735-6757(13)00159-9.
42. Yue, L. Q. 2007. Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J. Biopharm. Stat. 17:113. [PubMed][CrossRef]
43. Zhang, L.,, J. Huang,, T. Xu,, and Y. Lin. 2012. [Procalcitoninguided algorithms of antibiotic therapy in community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.] Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 35:275282. (In Chinese.) [PubMed]
44. Zweig, M. H. 1993. ROC plots display test accuracy, but are still limited by the study design. Clin. Chem. 39:13451346. [PubMed]
45. Zweig, M. H.,, and G. Campbell. 1993. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin. Chem. 39:561577. [PubMed]

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error