Sang Hyuk Park

Publications (2)2.17 Total impact

• Article: 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.

  Sang Hyuk Park, So-Young Kim, Woochang Lee, Sail Chun, Won-Ki Min
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Many laboratories use 4 delta check methods: delta difference, delta percent change, rate difference, and rate percent change. However, guidelines regarding decision criteria for selecting delta check methods have not yet been provided. We present new decision criteria for selecting delta check methods for each clinical chemistry test item. We collected 811,920 and 669,750 paired (present and previous) test results for 27 clinical chemistry test items from inpatients and outpatients, respectively. We devised new decision criteria for the selection of delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range (DD/RR). Delta check methods based on these criteria were compared with those based on the CV% of the absolute delta difference (ADD) as well as those reported in 2 previous studies. The delta check methods suggested by new decision criteria based on the DD/RR ratio corresponded well with those based on the CV% of the ADD except for only 2 items each in inpatients and outpatients. Delta check methods based on the DD/RR ratio also corresponded with those suggested in the 2 previous studies, except for 1 and 7 items in inpatients and outpatients, respectively. The DD/RR method appears to yield more feasible and intuitive selection criteria and can easily explain changes in the results by reflecting both the biological variation of the test item and the clinical characteristics of patients in each laboratory. We suggest this as a measure to determine delta check methods.
  Annals of laboratory medicine. 09/2012; 32(5):345-54.
• Article: Development and validation of an arterial blood gas analysis interpretation algorithm for application in clinical laboratory services.

  Sang Hyuk Park, Dongheui An, You Jin Chang, Hyun Jung Kim, Kyung Min Kim, Tai Yeon Koo, Sollip Kim, Woochang Lee, Won Seok Yang, Sang-Bum Hong, Sail Chun, Won-Ki Min
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) is a useful test that estimates the acid-base status of patients. However, numerically reported test results make rapid interpretation difficult. To overcome this problem, we have developed an algorithm that automatically interprets ABGA results, and assessed the validity of this algorithm for applications in clinical laboratory services. The algorithm was developed based on well-established guidelines using three test results (pH, PaCO₂ and [HCO₃⁻]) as variables. Ninety-nine ABGA test results were analysed by the algorithm. The algorithm's interpretations and the interpretations of two representative web-based ABGA interpretation programs were compared with those of two experienced clinicians. The concordance rates between the interpretations of each of the two clinicians and the algorithm were 91.9% and 97.0%, respectively. The web-based programs could not issue definitive interpretations in 15.2% and 25.3% of cases, respectively, but the algorithm issued definitive interpretations in all cases. Of the 10 cases that invoked disagreement among interpretations by the algorithm and the two clinicians, half were interpreted as compensated acid-base disorders by the algorithm but were assessed as normal by at least one of the two clinicians. In no case did the algorithm indicate a normal condition that the clinicians assessed as an abnormal condition. The interpretations of the algorithm showed a higher concordance rate with those of experienced clinicians than did two web-based programs. The algorithm sensitively detected acid-base disorders. The algorithm may be adopted by the clinical laboratory services to provide rapid and definitive interpretations of test results.
  Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 02/2011; 48(Pt 2):130-5. · 2.17 Impact Factor