An opportunity to emphasize the relevance of laboratory medicine

Medientyp: E-Artikel
Titel: An opportunity to emphasize the relevance of laboratory medicine
Beteiligte: Santamaría González, María; Ruiz Mínguez, María Ángels; Arrebola Ramírez, María Monsalud; Filella Pla, Xavier; Torrejón Martínez, María José; Morell García, Daniel; Castaño López, Miguel Ángel; Allué Palacín, Juan Antonio; Albaladejo Otón, María Dolores; Giménez Gómez, Nuria
Erschienen: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2021
Erschienen in: Advances in Laboratory Medicine / Avances en Medicina de Laboratorio
Sprache: Englisch
DOI: 10.1515/almed-2021-0029
ISSN: 2628-491X
Schlagwörter: Medical Laboratory Technology ; Education ; Medicine (miscellaneous)
Entstehung:
Anmerkungen:
Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec id="j_almed-2021-0029_abs_001"> <jats:title>Objectives</jats:title> <jats:p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence that are intended to help healthcare professionals and patients make the best clinical decisions. CPGs must be evidence-based and are designed by multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study is to assess the topics related to the clinical laboratory addressed in CPGs and evaluate the involvement of laboratory professionals in the CPG development process.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="j_almed-2021-0029_abs_002"> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>A total of 16 CPGs recommended by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine and/or retrieved from PubMed-Medline were included. A review of the information provided in CPGs about 80 topics related to the clinical laboratory was performed. The authorship of laboratory professionals was assessed.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="j_almed-2021-0029_abs_003"> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>On average, the 16 CPGs addressed 49% (standard deviation [SD]: 11%) of the topics evaluated in relation to the clinical laboratory. By order of frequency, CPGs contained information about 69% of postanalytical variables (SD: 20%); 52% of preanalytical variables (SD: 11%); and 43% of the analytical variables studied (SD: 18%). Finally, half the CPGs included a laboratory professional among its authors.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="j_almed-2021-0029_abs_004"> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>CPGs frequently failed to provide relevant laboratory-related information. Laboratory professionals were co-authors in only half the CPGs. There is scope for improvement, and laboratory professionals should be included in multidisciplinary teams involved in the development of CPGs.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang

Nur in Feld suchen:

Zuletzt gesuchte Begriffe: