justification for elevated lab parameters [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2006-05-06 16:58 (6359 d 03:03 ago) – Posting: # 115
Views: 8,116

Hi dinesh,

so the elevated value is:
  1. 3times the upper limit, and
  2. consistent within the subject.
You must distinguish between two cases:
  1. the subject was erroneously included -> that's a protocol deviation
  2. the subject was intentionally included
    1. was rated as 'not clinical significant' by the investigator in the CRF/lab. prinout: everything should be fine (it's the personal/professional responsibility of the investigator)
    2. was not rated 'ncs': should be corrected during the review of original data (dated and signed by the investigator)
The post-study value must be rated as 'not clinical significant' as well, because 'clinical significant' abnormal values should have been commented by the investigator, must have been documented as an adverse event and generally would trigger a follow-up exam.

For potential explanations see my first post, but I'm not a medical doctor/physician - you should talk with a specialist for laboratory medicine/clinical chemistry.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,771 posts in 4,777 threads, 1,627 registered users;
11 visitors (0 registered, 11 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz