Determining the utility of creatinine delta checks: A large retrospective analysis
Delta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their utility is unclear. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether establishment of a creatinine delta check would be an...
Saved in:
Published in | Clinical biochemistry Vol. 53; pp. 139 - 142 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Elsevier Inc
01.03.2018
|
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Delta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their utility is unclear. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether establishment of a creatinine delta check would be an effective means for capturing true laboratory error.
All patients with a minimum of two creatinine results during March of 2015 were selected for review (n = 23,410 creatinine results). The lowest % change for a previously confirmed creatinine error in our laboratory was approximately 60%; therefore only results that changed by at least ±60% (n = 254) were reviewed. The etiology of creatinine value change was categorized as laboratory error, pathologic change, or non-pathologic change, based upon chart review.
Results: 1.2% (3/254) of reviewed delta checks were determined to reflect 2 instances of true laboratory error that went unrecognized by laboratory staff. 91.3% (232/254) of the delta checks were determined to reflect a pathologic or dialysis-related change in creatinine levels. The remaining 7.5% of delta checks (19/234) were deemed to be non-pathologic changes in creatinine.
This study identified two instances of laboratory error reflected by 3 delta checks (1.2%); the vast majority (91.3%) of creatinine results that changed by ±60% were pathologic or dialysis-related. Thus, establishment of a ±60% delta check for creatinine would overwhelmingly flag true biological change and would not be an efficient means for identifying rare laboratory errors. Clinical laboratories should perform similar retrospective analyses prior to enacting delta checks to determine whether they will effectively capture laboratory error.
•With decreased specimen mix-ups due to lab automation and technology, the utility of delta checks has been questioned•Studies on delta checks are limited and data is needed to assess their effectiveness•Retrospective medical record review determined that a creatinine delta check would overwhelmingly flag pathologic change•Clinical laboratories can use retrospective analysis to assess the utility of potential or current delta checks |
---|---|
AbstractList | INTRODUCTIONDelta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their utility is unclear. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether establishment of a creatinine delta check would be an effective means for capturing true laboratory error.METHODSAll patients with a minimum of two creatinine results during March of 2015 were selected for review (n = 23,410 creatinine results). The lowest % change for a previously confirmed creatinine error in our laboratory was approximately 60%; therefore only results that changed by at least ±60% (n = 254) were reviewed. The etiology of creatinine value change was categorized as laboratory error, pathologic change, or non-pathologic change, based upon chart review.RESULTS1.2% (3/254) of reviewed delta checks were determined to reflect 2 instances of true laboratory error that went unrecognized by laboratory staff. 91.3% (232/254) of the delta checks were determined to reflect a pathologic or dialysis-related change in creatinine levels. The remaining 7.5% of delta checks (19/234) were deemed to be non-pathologic changes in creatinine.DISCUSSIONThis study identified two instances of laboratory error reflected by 3 delta checks (1.2%); the vast majority (91.3%) of creatinine results that changed by ±60% were pathologic or dialysis-related. Thus, establishment of a ±60% delta check for creatinine would overwhelmingly flag true biological change and would not be an efficient means for identifying rare laboratory errors. Clinical laboratories should perform similar retrospective analyses prior to enacting delta checks to determine whether they will effectively capture laboratory error. Delta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their utility is unclear. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether establishment of a creatinine delta check would be an effective means for capturing true laboratory error. All patients with a minimum of two creatinine results during March of 2015 were selected for review (n = 23,410 creatinine results). The lowest % change for a previously confirmed creatinine error in our laboratory was approximately 60%; therefore only results that changed by at least ±60% (n = 254) were reviewed. The etiology of creatinine value change was categorized as laboratory error, pathologic change, or non-pathologic change, based upon chart review. 1.2% (3/254) of reviewed delta checks were determined to reflect 2 instances of true laboratory error that went unrecognized by laboratory staff. 91.3% (232/254) of the delta checks were determined to reflect a pathologic or dialysis-related change in creatinine levels. The remaining 7.5% of delta checks (19/234) were deemed to be non-pathologic changes in creatinine. This study identified two instances of laboratory error reflected by 3 delta checks (1.2%); the vast majority (91.3%) of creatinine results that changed by ±60% were pathologic or dialysis-related. Thus, establishment of a ±60% delta check for creatinine would overwhelmingly flag true biological change and would not be an efficient means for identifying rare laboratory errors. Clinical laboratories should perform similar retrospective analyses prior to enacting delta checks to determine whether they will effectively capture laboratory error. Delta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their utility is unclear. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether establishment of a creatinine delta check would be an effective means for capturing true laboratory error. All patients with a minimum of two creatinine results during March of 2015 were selected for review (n = 23,410 creatinine results). The lowest % change for a previously confirmed creatinine error in our laboratory was approximately 60%; therefore only results that changed by at least ±60% (n = 254) were reviewed. The etiology of creatinine value change was categorized as laboratory error, pathologic change, or non-pathologic change, based upon chart review. Results: 1.2% (3/254) of reviewed delta checks were determined to reflect 2 instances of true laboratory error that went unrecognized by laboratory staff. 91.3% (232/254) of the delta checks were determined to reflect a pathologic or dialysis-related change in creatinine levels. The remaining 7.5% of delta checks (19/234) were deemed to be non-pathologic changes in creatinine. This study identified two instances of laboratory error reflected by 3 delta checks (1.2%); the vast majority (91.3%) of creatinine results that changed by ±60% were pathologic or dialysis-related. Thus, establishment of a ±60% delta check for creatinine would overwhelmingly flag true biological change and would not be an efficient means for identifying rare laboratory errors. Clinical laboratories should perform similar retrospective analyses prior to enacting delta checks to determine whether they will effectively capture laboratory error. •With decreased specimen mix-ups due to lab automation and technology, the utility of delta checks has been questioned•Studies on delta checks are limited and data is needed to assess their effectiveness•Retrospective medical record review determined that a creatinine delta check would overwhelmingly flag pathologic change•Clinical laboratories can use retrospective analysis to assess the utility of potential or current delta checks |
Author | Gruenberg, Jessica M. Karger, Amy B. Stein, Tracy A. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jessica M. surname: Gruenberg fullname: Gruenberg, Jessica M. email: grue0048@umn.edu – sequence: 2 givenname: Tracy A. surname: Stein fullname: Stein, Tracy A. email: stei1035@umn.edu – sequence: 3 givenname: Amy B. orcidid: 0000-0002-2781-3824 surname: Karger fullname: Karger, Amy B. email: karge026@umn.edu |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402415$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqNkE1v2zAMhoWhxZJ0-wuDduvFnijbsdVbkH4CBQYU21mQaapV5o9MUgrk31dB0mHHnkiCL_mSz4KdjdNIjH0HkYOA5Y9Njr0bWzfhCw25FNDkAnIhi09sDk1dZFIVxRmbCyFUpkCKGVuEsEmlLJvlZzaTqkwpVHP2dE2R_OBGNz7z-EJ8F13v4p5PlqMnEw8d4h310fBkh3_CFV_x3vhn4p6in8KWMLpX4mY0_T648IWdW9MH-nqKF-z37c2v9X32-PPuYb16zLCo65gtWyTR1aYhSYUo1ZJAlRZKWVoqEBU2SpVYCUW1rG3XgRVoK7SqaVsFCooLdnncu_XT3x2FqAcXkPrejDTtggalKqjKum6SVB2lmO4NnqzeejcYv9cg9AGp3uj_kOoDUi1AJ6Rp9tvJZtcO1P2bfGeYBOujgNKzr468DuhoROqcT2h0N7kP2LwBz-GQbg |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1515_cclm_2019_1131 crossref_primary_10_11613_BM_2022_030704 crossref_primary_10_1093_ndt_gfac051 crossref_primary_10_11613_BM_2019_020502 crossref_primary_10_1080_10408363_2018_1540536 crossref_primary_10_1515_cclm_2022_1098 |
Cites_doi | 10.1258/acb.2011.011125 10.1631/jzus.B1500201 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.05.003 10.4103/2153-3539.93402 10.5858/arpa.2016-0161-CP 10.1093/clinchem/21.11.1648 10.1093/clinchem/28.11.2244 10.1093/ajcp/62.5.707 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists Copyright © 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists – notice: Copyright © 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
DBID | NPM AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023 |
DatabaseName | PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic PubMed |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine Chemistry |
EISSN | 1873-2933 |
EndPage | 142 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1016_j_clinbiochem_2018_01_023 29402415 S0009912017312547 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- --K --M -~X .55 .GJ .~1 0R~ 1B1 1RT 1~. 1~5 29B 4.4 457 4G. 4R4 53G 5GY 5VS 6J9 7-5 71M 8P~ 9JM AACTN AAEDT AAEDW AAIAV AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAOAW AAQFI AAQXK AAXUO AAYJJ ABBQC ABFNM ABFRF ABGSF ABJNI ABLVK ABMAC ABMZM ABOCM ABUDA ABXDB ABYKQ ACDAQ ACGFO ACGFS ACIUM ACRLP ADBBV ADEZE ADMUD ADUVX AEBSH AEFWE AEHWI AEKER AENEX AFKWA AFTJW AFXIZ AGHFR AGRDE AGUBO AGYEJ AHHHB AHPSJ AIEXJ AIKHN AITUG AJBFU AJOXV AJRQY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMFUW AMRAJ ANZVX ASPBG AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV CS3 DOVZS DU5 EBS EFJIC EFLBG EJD EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN G-2 G-Q G8K GBLVA HLW HVGLF HX~ HZ~ IHE J1W KOM LCYCR LX3 M41 MO0 N9A O-L O9- OAUVE OZT P-8 P-9 P2P PC. Q38 R2- RIG ROL RPZ SBG SDF SDG SDP SES SEW SPCBC SSH SSU SSZ T5K UNMZH WUQ X7M XPP YYP YYQ ZGI ZUP ~G- AAXKI ADVLN AFJKZ AKRWK NPM AAYXX ABDPE ACRPL ADNMO CITATION 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-6bce0d7a8e2e30496e194f1424fe3cc9c8994c509e727fdd1f0cf5cf98bb91913 |
IEDL.DBID | AIKHN |
ISSN | 0009-9120 |
IngestDate | Sun Sep 29 07:45:45 EDT 2024 Fri Dec 06 05:13:56 EST 2024 Wed Oct 16 00:58:28 EDT 2024 Fri Feb 23 02:33:46 EST 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Language | English |
License | Copyright © 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c377t-6bce0d7a8e2e30496e194f1424fe3cc9c8994c509e727fdd1f0cf5cf98bb91913 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ORCID | 0000-0002-2781-3824 |
PMID | 29402415 |
PQID | 1995154778 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 4 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1995154778 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiochem_2018_01_023 pubmed_primary_29402415 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_clinbiochem_2018_01_023 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | March 2018 2018-Mar 2018-03-00 20180301 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2018 text: March 2018 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | Clinical biochemistry |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Clin Biochem |
PublicationYear | 2018 |
Publisher | Elsevier Inc |
Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier Inc |
References | Nosanchuk, Gottmann (bb0010) 1974; 62 Schifman, Talbert, Souers (bb0030) 2017; 141 Garner, Lewington, Barth (bb0045) 2012; 49 Ladenson (bb0020) 1975; 21 Ovens, Naugler (bb0005) 2012; 3 Karger, Senn, Skogseth, Floodman (bb0040) 2016; 49 Li, Sun, Yap, Chen, Qian (bb0025) 2016; 17 CLSI (bb0035) 2016 Iizuka, Kume, Multivariate (bb0015) 1982; 28 Iizuka (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0015) 1982; 28 Schifman (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0030) 2017; 141 CLSI (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0035) 2016 Nosanchuk (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0010) 1974; 62 Ovens (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0005) 2012; 3 Ladenson (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0020) 1975; 21 Karger (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0040) 2016; 49 Li (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0025) 2016; 17 Garner (10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0045) 2012; 49 |
References_xml | – volume: 17 start-page: 181 year: 2016 end-page: 187 ident: bb0025 article-title: 0.9% saline is neither normal nor physiological publication-title: J Zhejiang Univ Sci B contributor: fullname: Qian – volume: 49 start-page: 737 year: 2016 end-page: 739 ident: bb0040 article-title: Rare erroneous results on the Siemens dimension vista® platform due to urine carryover: a warning to current users publication-title: Clin. Biochem. contributor: fullname: Floodman – volume: 62 start-page: 707 year: 1974 end-page: 712 ident: bb0010 article-title: CUMS and delta checks. A systematic approach to quality control publication-title: Am. J. Clin. Pathol. contributor: fullname: Gottmann – volume: 28 start-page: 2244 year: 1982 end-page: 2248 ident: bb0015 article-title: Delta check method for detecting specimen mix-up publication-title: Clin. Chem. contributor: fullname: Multivariate – volume: 21 start-page: 1648 year: 1975 end-page: 1653 ident: bb0020 article-title: Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify “laboratory error” publication-title: Clin. Chem. contributor: fullname: Ladenson – volume: 3 start-page: 5 year: 2012 ident: bb0005 article-title: How useful are delta checks in the 21 century? A stochastic-dynamic model of specimen mix-up and detection publication-title: J. Pathol. Inform. contributor: fullname: Naugler – year: 2016 ident: bb0035 article-title: Use of Delta Checks in the Medical Laboratory. CLSI Document EP33 contributor: fullname: CLSI – volume: 141 start-page: 813 year: 2017 end-page: 823 ident: bb0030 article-title: Delta check practices and outcomes: a Q-probes study involving 49 health care facilities and 6541 Delta check alerts publication-title: Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. contributor: fullname: Souers – volume: 49 start-page: 59 year: 2012 end-page: 62 ident: bb0045 article-title: Detection of patients with acute kidney injury by the clinical laboratory using rises in serum creatinine: comparison of proposed definitions and a laboratory delta check publication-title: Ann. Clin. Biochem. contributor: fullname: Barth – year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0035 contributor: fullname: CLSI – volume: 49 start-page: 59 issue: Pt 1 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0045 article-title: Detection of patients with acute kidney injury by the clinical laboratory using rises in serum creatinine: comparison of proposed definitions and a laboratory delta check publication-title: Ann. Clin. Biochem. doi: 10.1258/acb.2011.011125 contributor: fullname: Garner – volume: 17 start-page: 181 issue: 3 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0025 article-title: 0.9% saline is neither normal nor physiological publication-title: J Zhejiang Univ Sci B doi: 10.1631/jzus.B1500201 contributor: fullname: Li – volume: 49 start-page: 737 issue: 10−11 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0040 article-title: Rare erroneous results on the Siemens dimension vista® platform due to urine carryover: a warning to current users publication-title: Clin. Biochem. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.05.003 contributor: fullname: Karger – volume: 3 start-page: 5 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0005 article-title: How useful are delta checks in the 21 century? A stochastic-dynamic model of specimen mix-up and detection publication-title: J. Pathol. Inform. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.93402 contributor: fullname: Ovens – volume: 141 start-page: 813 issue: 6 year: 2017 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0030 article-title: Delta check practices and outcomes: a Q-probes study involving 49 health care facilities and 6541 Delta check alerts publication-title: Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0161-CP contributor: fullname: Schifman – volume: 21 start-page: 1648 issue: 11 year: 1975 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0020 article-title: Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify “laboratory error” publication-title: Clin. Chem. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/21.11.1648 contributor: fullname: Ladenson – volume: 28 start-page: 2244 issue: 11 year: 1982 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0015 article-title: Delta check method for detecting specimen mix-up publication-title: Clin. Chem. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/28.11.2244 contributor: fullname: Iizuka – volume: 62 start-page: 707 issue: 5 year: 1974 ident: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023_bb0010 article-title: CUMS and delta checks. A systematic approach to quality control publication-title: Am. J. Clin. Pathol. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/62.5.707 contributor: fullname: Nosanchuk |
SSID | ssj0002486 |
Score | 2.3021476 |
Snippet | Delta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory automation, their... INTRODUCTIONDelta checks are a long-standing practice for identifying errors in the laboratory. However, with the decrease in errors due to laboratory... |
SourceID | proquest crossref pubmed elsevier |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 139 |
Title | Determining the utility of creatinine delta checks: A large retrospective analysis |
URI | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402415 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1995154778 |
Volume | 53 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1La8JAEB58gO2ltPZlH7JCr6mJiSYpvYit2JZ6KBW8LclmFmxFReO1v70zZtPHQSj0mBdZZnfn-4aZbxbgqhMoFyOb97ftWZ5KlBVRBEYbL-HmH4R5etPtc9gZjLzHcXtcgF6uheGySuP7M5--8dbmTtNYs7mYTFjjS-zGIQDzXUJpzy9CmeCIc7Xl7sPTYPjlkFve5sBHft_iDyrQ-C7zYgFiPOHTqViX7gRZE093G0xto6EbOOrvw57hkaKbDfUACjirwk4vP76tCpVnkzU_hJc7U_NCMCWI8AlabMy-xVyLjDTSExQJTtNI0BDV--pGdMWUi8TFEtPlPNdjisj0MDmCUf_-tTewzFkKlnJ9P7U6sUI78aMAW8iZtQ46oadZ5qbRVSpUFHd5itgDEqHRSeJoW-m20mEQxyHFdO4xlGbzGZ6CIAKBgUocQlf0ItcNHfQpykqQdbZxpGvQyk0nF1nLDJnXkr3JH_aWbG9pO5LsXYPb3Mjy1_xLcu1_-byRT4wkO3PSI5rhfL2SLEEnmuj7QQ1Oshn7GlUrpOiZGMzZ_35-Drt8lVWmXUApXa7xkqhKGteheP3h1M2C_ATRIekp |
link.rule.ids | 314,780,784,4502,24116,27924,27925,45585,45679 |
linkProvider | Elsevier |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8NAEB5qhdaL-LY-t-A1Nmm2TSJepFqqtj2Igrcl2cxCtTRS06u_3Zk8fBwKgtdsQpZvd2e-YeebATjr-trF0ObzbUtL6lhbIUVgdPBiLv5BPs9k1T7H3cGTvHvuPFegV2phOK2ysP25Tc-sdfGkVaDZeptMWONL7MYhB-a55KWltwKrskPslzb1-cd3nkdbZu0e-W2LX69B8zvJi-WH0YR7U7Eq3fHzEp7uMie1jIRmzqi_AesFixRX-UQ3oYKzLaj3yuZtW1AbFXfm2_BwXWS8kJMSRPcEbTXm3iIxIqeMNIIixmkaCpqifn2_EFdiyiniYo7pPCnVmCIsKpjswFP_5rE3sIpOCpZ2PS-1upFGO_ZCH9vI92pddAJpWORm0NU60BR1SU3cAYnOmDh2jK1NR5vAj6KAIjp3F6qzZIb7IIg-oK9jh3wrytB1Awc9irFiZJVtFJoGtEvo1FteMEOVmWQv6gfeivFWtqMI7wZcliCrX6uvyLD_5fNmuTCKcOYrj3CGyeJdsQCdSKLn-Q3Yy1fsa1btgGJn4i8H__v5KdQHj6OhGt6O7w9hjUfyHLUjqKbzBR4TaUmjk2xTfgLv1OoC |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determining+the+utility+of+creatinine+delta+checks%3A+A+large+retrospective+analysis&rft.jtitle=Clinical+biochemistry&rft.au=Gruenberg%2C+Jessica+M&rft.au=Stein%2C+Tracy+A&rft.au=Karger%2C+Amy+B&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.eissn=1873-2933&rft.volume=53&rft.spage=139&rft.epage=142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.clinbiochem.2018.01.023&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0009-9120&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0009-9120&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0009-9120&client=summon |