Velthove Karin J, Leufkens Hubert Gm, Souverein Patrick C, Schweizer René C, van Solinge Wouter W
Faculty of Science, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2010 May 14;7(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-7-2.
Laboratory testing in clinical practice is never a random process. In this study we evaluated testing bias for neutrophil counts in clinical practice by using results from requested and non-requested hematological blood tests.
This study was conducted using data from the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database. This clinical database is unique, as it contains physician requested data, but also data that are not requested by the physician, but measured as result of requesting other hematological parameters. We identified adult patients, hospitalized in 2005 with at least two blood tests during admission, where requests for general blood profiles and specifically for neutrophil counts were contrasted in scenario analyses. Possible effect modifiers were diagnosis and glucocorticoid use.
A total of 567 patients with requested neutrophil counts and 1,439 patients with non-requested neutrophil counts were analyzed. The absolute neutrophil count at admission differed with a mean of 7.4 x 109/l for requested counts and 8.3 x 109/l for non-requested counts (p-value < 0.001). This difference could be explained for 83.2% by the occurrence of cardiovascular disease as underlying disease and for 4.5% by glucocorticoid use.
Requests for neutrophil counts in clinical databases are associated with underlying disease and with cardiovascular disease in particular. The results from our study show the importance of evaluating testing bias in epidemiological studies obtaining data from clinical databases.
临床实践中的实验室检测绝非随机过程。在本研究中,我们通过使用申请的和未申请的血液学血液检测结果,评估了临床实践中中性粒细胞计数的检测偏倚。
本研究使用来自乌得勒支患者导向数据库的数据进行。这个临床数据库很独特,因为它既包含医生申请的数据,也包含并非医生申请但作为申请其他血液学参数的结果而测量的数据。我们确定了2005年住院的成年患者,这些患者在入院期间至少进行了两次血液检测,在情景分析中对比了一般血液检查申请,特别是中性粒细胞计数申请。可能的效应修饰因素为诊断和糖皮质激素的使用。
共分析了567例申请中性粒细胞计数的患者和1439例未申请中性粒细胞计数的患者。入院时的绝对中性粒细胞计数,申请计数的平均差异为7.4×10⁹/L,未申请计数的平均差异为8.3×10⁹/L(p值<0.001)。这种差异的83.2%可由潜在疾病心血管疾病的发生来解释,4.5%可由糖皮质激素的使用来解释。
临床数据库中中性粒细胞计数的申请与潜在疾病,特别是心血管疾病有关。我们的研究结果表明,在从临床数据库获取数据的流行病学研究中评估检测偏倚的重要性。