Citation

Nwose EU, Bwititi PT, Richards RS (2018) Research Statistical Method Seemingly Non-Transferrable to Clinical Pathology Practice: A Case for D-Dimer Quantitative Testing. Int J Pathol Clin Res 4:084. doi.org/10.23937/2469-5807/1510084

Copyright

© 2018 Nwose EU, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

BRIEF REPORT | OPEN ACCESS DOI: 10.23937/2469-5807/1510084

Research Statistical Method Seemingly Non-Transferrable to Clinical Pathology Practice: A Case for D-Dimer Quantitative Testing

Ezekiel Uba Nwose1*, Phillip Taderera Bwititi2 and Ross Stuart Richards1

1School of Community Health, Charles Sturt University, Australia

2School of Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Abstract

Background

Plasma D-dimer data are often not normally distributed. In the research setting, such data is non-parametric and statistical analysis is often based on log-transformed data. In the clinical pathology, results are not transformed, but interpreted as it is.

Objective

Plasma D-dimer data are often not normally distributed. In the research setting, such data is non-parametric and statistical analysis is often based on log-transformed data. In the clinical pathology, results are not transformed, but interpreted as it is.

Methods

This was a critical review of cross-sectional laboratory data. A total of ninety samples comprising N = 30 per group were equally selected from groups from a pool of plasma D-dimer tests. The three groups were control, diabetes mellitus (DM), and diabetes plus cardiovascular (DM + CVD) disease. A descriptive analysis and comparison were performed on log-transformed and untransformed data.

Results

ANOVA on untransformed data showed non-significant difference between groups, but the log normalized data achieved statistical significance (p < 0.03). Comparing the DM with DM + CVD groups, mean value is higher in DM group of untransformed data, but lower in the same data when it is log-transformed.

Conclusion

There is need to clarify the background statistics behind the reference values recommended in various quantitative kits- whether it is based on log-transformed or untransformed data. Either the researcher who transforms data or the clinician who does not transform result would need to review the correctness of employing the recommendations on the reagent kit to interpret results.