English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A laboratory test has three phases, pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical. The purpose of this review is to highlight an issue concerning the analytical phase of one of the most widely deployed groups of in vitro diagnostic tests using a common technology - namely immunoassay.Immunoassay entails an inherently high error rate and, therefore, has the potential for inaccurate and misleading results susceptible to misinterpretation and/or diagnostic misapplication by clinicians. An approach based on Bayesian inference (without mathematics or equations) - illustrated by examples - is presented; this may help clinicians in discerning potentially erroneous results even when they appear plausible and not unreasonable.Essentially, false positive results are most likely to occur when the disease prevalence/incidence is low. False negative results become more prominent when the prevalence/incidence of disease increases. When concern is raised, available follow-up laboratory tests should be initiated to establish with confidence the diagnostic reliability or unreliability of such results.

When laboratory tests can mislead even when they appear plausible