justification for elevated lab parameters [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2006-05-06 16:58 (6649 d 06:54 ago) – Posting: # 115
Views: 8,895

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
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
85 visitors (0 registered, 85 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Skill is a function of chance.
It’s an intuitive best-use of chance situations.    Philip K. Dick

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