Delta Checks in the clinical laboratory

References

• Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, et al. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2002;48:691–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snydman LK, Harubin B, Kumar S, et al. Voluntary electronic reporting of laboratory errors: an analysis of 37,532 laboratory event reports from 30 health care organizations. Am J Med Qual. 2012;27:147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2003;41:617–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straseski JA, Strathmann FG. Patient data algorithms. Clin Lab Med. 2013;33:147–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leen TK, Erdogmus D, Kazmierczak S. Statistical error detection for clinical laboratory tests. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). 2012;2720–2723.
   Google Scholar
• Sher PP. An evaluation of the detection capacity of a computer-assisted real-time delta check system. Clin Chem. 1979;25:870–872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway HB, Kaplan HS. Mathematical implications of inadvertent sample swapping and the perception of apparent rates of gross error. Clin Chem. 1990;36:1525–1526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindberg DA. Collection, evaluation, and transmission of hospital laboratory data. Methods Inf Med. 1967;6:97–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLSI. Use of delta checks in the medical laboratory; Approved Guideline – First Edition. CLSI Document EP33. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Karger AB. To Delta Check or Not to Delta Check? That is the question. Jrnl App Lab Med. 2017;1:457–459.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bologna LJ, Lind C, Riggs RC. Reducing major identification errors within a deployed phlebotomy process. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2002;16:22–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Howanitz PJ, Renner SW, Walsh MK. Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks Study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:809–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder SR, Favoretto AM, Derzon JH, et al. Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Biochem. 2012;45:988–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosanchuk JS, Gottmann AW. CUMS and delta checks: A systematic approach to quality control. Am J Clin Pathol. 1974;62:707–712.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ladenson JH. Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify" laboratory error". Clin Chem. 1975;21:1648–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young DS, Harris EK, Cotlove E. Biological and analytic components of variation in long-term studies of serum constituents in normal subjects: IV. Results of a study designed to eliminate long-term analytic deviations. Clin Chem. 1971;17:403–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehurst P, Di Silvio TV, Boyadjian G. Evaluation of discrepancies in patients' results—an aspect of computer-assisted quality control. Clin Chem. 1975;21:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler LA, Sheiner LB. Delta check tables for the Technicon SMA 6 continuous-flow analyzer. Clin Chem. 1977;23:216–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheiner LB, Wheeler LA, Moore JK. The performance of delta check methods. Clin Chem. 1979;25:2034–2037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler LA, Sheiner LB. A clinical evaluation of various delta check methods. Clin Chem. 1981;27:5–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vyas SG, Singh G. Location of monoclonal peak as a tool in checking specimen integrity. Pract Lab Med. 2017;8:49–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Makroo RN, Bhatia A. Delta check for blood groups: a step ahead in blood safety. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2017;11:18–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller I. Development and evaluation of a logical delta check for identifying erroneous blood count results in a tertiary care hospital. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:1042–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamashita T, Ichihara K, Miyamoto A. A novel weighted cumulative delta-check method for highly sensitive detection of specimen mix-up in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:781–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strathmann FG, Baird GS, Hoffman NG. Simulations of delta check rule performance to detect specimen mislabeling using historical laboratory data. Clin Chim Acta. 2011;412:1973–1977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iizuka Y, Kume H, Kitamura M. Multivariate delta check method for detecting specimen mix-up. Clin Chem. 1982;28:2244–2248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houwen B, Duffin D. Delta checks for random error detection in hematology tests. Lab Med. 1989;20:410–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valdiguie PM, Rogari E, Philippe H. VALAB: expert system for validation of biochemical data. Clin Chem. 1992;38:83–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fokkema MR, Herrmann Z, Muskiet FA, et al. Reference change values for brain natriuretic peptides revisited. Clin Chem. 2006;52:1602–1603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund F, Petersen PH, Fraser CG, et al. Different percentages of false-positive results obtained using five methods for the calculation of reference change values based on simulated normal and ln-normal distributions of data. Ann Clin Biochem. 2016;53:692–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson ML, Rehak NN, Sokoll LJ, et al. Time adjusted sensitivity analysis: a new statistical test for the optimization of delta check rules. J Clin Ligand Assay. 2007;30:44–54.
   Google Scholar
• Kanno T, Takeuchi I, Sudo K. Bivariate ratio monitoring in clinical laboratories. Am J Clin Pathol. 1981;76:782–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacher DA. The relationship between delta checks for selected chemistry tests. Clin Chem. 1990;36:2134–2136.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rheem I, Lee KN. The multi-item univariate delta check method: a new approach. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;52:859–863.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dufour DR, Cruser DL, Buttolph T, et al. The clinical significance of delta checks. (Abstract 60.). Am J Clin Path. 1998;110:531.
   Google Scholar
• Furutani H, Kitazoe Y, Yamamoto K, et al. Evaluation of the “Mahalanobis’ generalized distance” method of quality control: monitoring system of multivariate data. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:329–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacher DA, Connelly DP. Rate and delta checks compared for selected chemistry tests. Clin Chem. 1988;34:1966–1970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J, Kim SY, Kwon HJ, et al. Usefulness of biological variation in the establishment of delta check limits. Clin Chim Acta. 2016;463:18–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro-Castro MJ, Dot-Bach D, Candás-Estébanez B, et al. Estimation of alert and change limits and its application in the plausibility control. Accred Qual Assur. 2011;16:643–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser CG. Reference change values. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50:807–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:833–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carobene A. Reliability of biological variation data available in an online database: need for improvement. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:871–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga F, Ferraro S, Ieva F, et al. A new robust statistical model for interpretation of differences in serial test results from an individual. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53:815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko DH, Park HI, Hyun J, et al. Utility of reference change values for delta check limits. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;148:323–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Navarro L, Castro-Castro MJ, Dot-Bach D, et al. Estimation of alert and change limits of haematological quantities and its application in the plausibility control. EJIFCC. 2014;25:115–127.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricós C, Iglesias N, García-Lario JV, et al. Within-subject biological variation in disease: collated data and clinical consequences. Ann Clin Biochem. 2007;44:343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang P, Tang H, Chen K, et al. Biological variations of hematologic parameters determined by UniCel DxH 800 hematology analyzer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1106–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aarsand AK, Fernandez-Calle P, Ricos C, et al. The biological variation data critical appraisal checklist: A standard for evaluating studies on biological variation. Clin Chem. 2018;64:501–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris EK. Effects of intra-and interindividual variation on the appropriate use of normal ranges. Clin Chem. 1974;20:1535–1542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones GRD. Critical difference calculations revised: inclusion of variation in standard deviation with analyte concentration. Ann Clin Biochem. 2009;46:517–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran DV, Cembrowski GS, Lee T, et al. Application of 3-D Δ check graphs to HbA1c quality control and HbA1c utilization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:292–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezotte D, Grams RR. Determining clinical significance in repeated laboratory measurements. J Med Syst. 1979;3:175–191.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park SH, Kim SY, Lee W, et al. New decision criteria for selecting delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range can be generally applicable for each clinical chemistry test item. Ann Lab Med. 2012;32:345–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimac V, Lapic I, Kules K, et al. Implementation of the autovalidation algorithm for clinical chemistry testing in the laboratory information system. Lab Med. 2018;49:284–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampfrath T. Delta checks checkup: Optimizing cutoffs with lab-specific inputs. Clinical Laboratory News 2017, August 1. [cited 2018 Jul 13] Available from: https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2017/august/delta-checks-checkup
   Google Scholar
• Min WK, Lee JO. The development of online delta check system using the workstation. J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 1996;18:133–142.
   Google Scholar
• Valenstein PN, Cadoff E, Burke MD. Computer based audit of potassium monitoring. Inform Pathol. 1987;2:102–106.
   Google Scholar
• Kim JW, Kim JQ, Kim SI. Differential application of rate and delta check on selected clinical chemistry tests. J Korean Med Sci. 1990;5:189–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schifman RB, Talbert M, Souers RJ. Delta check practices and outcomes: a Q-probes study involving 49 health care facilities and 6541 delta check alerts. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:813–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Grande E, Varela-Rodriguez C, Sáenz-Mateos L, et al. Impact of reference change value (RCV) based autoverification on turnaround time and physician satisfaction. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017;27:342–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn N, Dawnay A. A simple electronic alert for acute kidney injury. Ann Clin Biochem. 2015;52:206–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization (2012). Medical laboratories: requirements for quality and competence. ISO Standard No 15189.
   Google Scholar
• College of American Pathologists (CAP). Laboratory General Checklist. CAP Accreditation Program. Northfield (IL). CAP; 2012,
   Google Scholar
• College of American Pathologists (CAP). Master All Common Checklist. CAP Accreditation Program. College of American Pathologists, Northfield (IL). CAP; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Commission International. Accreditation Standards for Laboratories. Oak Brook (IL). Joint Commission International, 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 12] Available from: https://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/assets/3/7/JCI_Standards_for_Laboratories_STANDARDS-ONLY.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, et al. The International Consensus Group for Hematology Review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol. 2005;11:83–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dunn EJ, Moga PJ. Patient misidentification in laboratory medicine: a qualitative analysis of 227 root cause analysis reports in the Veterans Health Administration. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:244–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carraro P, Zago T, Plebani M. Exploring the initial steps of the testing process: frequency and nature of pre-preanalytic errors. Clin Chem. 2012;58:638–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1106–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, et al. Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:143–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McSwiney RR, Woodrow DA. Types of errors within a clinical laboratory. J Med Lab Technol. 1969;26:340–346.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grannis GF, Grümer HD, Lott JA, et al. Proficiency evaluation of clinical chemistry laboratories. Clin Chem. 1972;18:222–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckerman JF, Henderson AR. The clinical biochemistry laboratory computer system and result entry: validation of analytical results. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 1985;20:103–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagar EA, Tamashiro L, Yasin B, et al. Patient safety in the clinical laboratory: a longitudinal analysis of specimen identification errors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1662–1668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy MF, Stearn BE, Dzik WH. Current performance of patient sample collection in the UK. Transfus Med. 2004;14:113–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford A. Delta checks as a safety net: how used, how useful. CAP Today. 2015;29:22–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ovens K, Naugler C. How useful are delta checks in the 21st century? A stochastic-dynamic model of specimen mix-up and detection. J Pathol Inform. 2012;3:5. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.93402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deetz CO, Nolan DK, Scott MG. An examination of the usefulness of repeat testing practices in a large hospital clinical chemistry laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:20–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joint Commission. National Patient Safety Goals. Oak Brook (IL). The Joint Commission. [cited 2018 Jul 12]. Available from: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/npsgs.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Lantis KL, Harris RJ, Davis G, et al. Elimination of instrument-driven reflex manual differential leukocyte counts: optimization of manual blood smear review criteria in a high-volume automated hematology laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:656–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancuso JV, Short P, Manilich EA. Learning to classify contaminated blood tests: a Neural Approach. Workshop track - ICLR 2018. [cited 2018 Jul 12] Available from: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1vuwKJPz.
   Google Scholar
• Demirci F, Akan P, Kume T, et al. Artificial neural network approach in laboratory test reporting: learning algorithms. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron JM, Mermel C, Lewandrowski KB, et al. Detection of preanalytic laboratory testing errors using a statistically guided protocol. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138:406–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervinski M, Cembrowski G. Detection of systematic error using the average of Deltas. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;147:S162–S163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones GR. Average of delta: a new quality control tool for clinical laboratories. Ann Clin Biochem. 2016;53:133–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Queraltó JM. Intraindividual reference values. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42:765–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biosca C, Ricós C, Lauzurica R, et al. Reference change value concept combining two delta values to predict crises in renal posttransplantation. Clin Chem. 2001;47:2146–2148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozturk OG, Paydas S, Balal M, et al. Biological variations of some analytes in renal posttransplant patients: A different way to assess routine parameters. J Clin Lab Anal. 2013;27:438–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruins S, Fokkema MR, Römer JW, et al. High intraindividual variation of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal proBNP in patients with stable chronic heart failure. Clin Chem. 2004;50:2052–2058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers WC, van der Velde AR, Muller Kobold AC, et al. Variability of biomarkers in patients with chronic heart failure and healthy controls. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19:357–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padoan A, D’Incà R, Scapellato ML, et al. Improving IBD diagnosis and monitoring by understanding preanalytical, analytical and biological fecal calprotectin variability. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56:1926–1935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sölétormos G, Schiøler V, Nielsen D, et al. Interpretation of results for tumor markers on the basis of analytical imprecision and biological variation. Clin Chem. 1993;39:2077–2083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erden G, Barazi AO, Tezcan G, et al. Biological variation and reference change values of CA 19‐9, CEA, AFP in serum of healthy individuals. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2008;68:212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sölétormos G, Duffy MJ, Hayes DF, et al. Design of tumor biomarker–monitoring trials: a proposal by the European group on tumor markers. Clin Chem. 2013;59:52–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi Z, Zhang L, Chen Y, et al. Biological variations of seven tumor markers. Clin Chim Acta. 2015;450:233–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamatmanesh M, McCudden CR, McCurdy A, et al. Monoclonal protein reference change value as determined by gel-based serum protein electrophoresis. Clin Biochem. 2018;51:61–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bugdayci G, Oguzman H, Arattan HY, et al. The use of reference change values in clinical laboratories. Clin Lab. 2015;61:251–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers AJ, Savage C, O'Brien MF, et al. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. Jco. 2009;27:398–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty S, Bhattacharya C, Das S, et al. Delta check: a must in the management of hyponatremia. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:e161–e162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbalis JG, Gullans SR. Hyponatremia causes large sustained reductions in brain content of multiple organic osmolytes in rats. Brain Res. 1991;567:274–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterns RH. Overview of the treatment of hyponatremia in adults. UpToDate; 2018. [cited 2018 Oct 5]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-the-treatment-of-hyponatremia-in-adults.
   Google Scholar
• Tormey WP, Carney M, Cuesta M, et al. Reference change values for sodium are ignored by the American and European treatment guidelines for hyponatremia. Clin Chem. 2015;61:1430–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart J, Findlay G, Smith N, et al. Adding insult to injury: a review of the care of patients who died in hospital with a primary diagnosis of acute kidney injury (acute renal failure). A report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. London (UK). NCEPOD;2009. [cited 2018 Oct 5]. Avalilable from https://www.ncepod.org.uk/2009aki.html
   Google Scholar
• Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease – mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2017;7:1–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner AE, Lewington AJ, Barth JH. 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. Ann Clin Biochem. 2012;49:59–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas ME, Sitch A, Baharani J, et al. Earlier intervention for acute kidney injury: evaluation of an outreach service and a long-term follow-up. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2015;30:239–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron JM, Cheng XS, Bazari H, et al. Enhanced creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate reporting to facilitate detection of acute kidney injury. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;143:42–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffe AS, Moeckel M, Giannitsis E, et al. In search for the Holy Grail: suggestions for studies to define delta changes to diagnose or exclude acute myocardial infarction: a position paper from the study group on biomarkers of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovas Care. 2014;3:313–316.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickering JW, Greenslade JH, Cullen L, et al. Assessment of the European Society of Cardiology 0-Hour/1-hour algorithm to rule-out and rule-in acute myocardial infarction clinical perspective. Circulation. 2016;134:1532–1541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow DA. Clinician’s guide to early rule-out strategies with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. Circulation. 2017;135:1612–1616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger C, Wildi K, Twerenbold R, et al. One-hour rule-in and rule-out of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I. Am Heart J. 2016;171:92–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twerenbold R, Boeddinghaus J, Nestelberger T, et al. Clinical use of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in patients with suspected myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:996–1012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apple FS, Sandoval Y, Jaffe AS, et al. Cardiac troponin assays: guide to understanding analytical characteristics and their impact on clinical care. Clin Chem. 2017;63:73–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen K, Mair J, Giannitsis E, et al. How to use high-sensitivity cardiac troponins in acute cardiac care. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2252–2257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:267–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plebani M. Harmonization in laboratory medicine: the complete picture. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:741–751.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plebani M. Harmonization in laboratory medicine: more than clinical chemistry? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56:1579–1586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoot NR, Aronsky D. Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52:126–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steindel SJ, Howanitz PJ. Physician satisfaction and emergency department laboratory test turnaround time: observations based on College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:863–871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhuis WP, Ulenkate HJ, Goldschmidt HM. Evaluation of LabRespond, a new automated validation system for clinical laboratory test results. Clin Chem. 2000;46:1811–1817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randell EW, Short G, Lee N, et al. Autoverification process improvement by Six Sigma approach: clinical chemistry & immunoassay. Clin Biochem. 2018;55:42–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randell EW, Short G, Lee N, et al. Strategy for 90% autoverification of clinical chemistry and immunoassay test results using six sigma process improvement. Data Brief. 2018;18:1740–1749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feitosa MS, Bücker DH, Santos SME, et al. Implementation of criteria for automatic release of clinical chemistry test results in a laboratory at an academic public hospital. J Bras Patol Med Lab. 2016;52:149–156.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser CG, Stevenson HP, Kennedy IM. Biological variation data are necessary prerequisites for objective autoverification of clinical laboratory data. Accred Qual Assur. 2002;7:455–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasowski MD, Davis SR, Drees D, et al. Autoverification in a core clinical chemistry laboratory at an academic medical center. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5:13. Available from: http://www.jpathinformatics.org/text.asp?2014/5/1/13/129450
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gruenberg JM, Stein TA, Karger AB. Determining the utility of creatinine delta checks: a large retrospective analysis. Clin Biochem. 2018;53:139–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyashchenko AK, Wontakal SN, Reynafarje GM, et al. Trust but verify: repeat CBC sample measurements help identify automated hematology analyzer errors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;149:S172–S173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar