- Published
- Updated
The new-test result may be available before reference assessment is complete. If a data cut occurs during that interval, pending results should remain explicit. Coding delay as an automatic negative or permanent absence can distort evaluation.
Define the assessment
Distinguish pending, unobtainable and completed reference states. Link dispatch, acceptance and reporting dates from external laboratories or independent assessors. Plan how results arriving after the cut enter a later version while preserving blinding and change history.
Worked example
For example, external laboratory results arrive after report closure. The earlier table shows those records without reference information. Rather than silently overwriting it, the team identifies the new cut, changed counts and versioned assessment. It also examines whether delay concentrates in particular sites or specimen groups.
Practical checks
- Define reference-process waiting states and a responsible contact point.
- Preserve links between late results, their source and the analytical version.
- Reconcile the pending group with its place in earlier result tables.
Decision and limitations
The report should explain which results were known at each date. Include the size and possible selectivity of pending information in interpretation. Eventual availability does not justify misrecording the earlier state. Authorised reviewers determine further assessment and effects of updating the report.
Frequently asked questions
- Can pending reference status be coded negative?
- No. An unknown state is not an observed negative result.
- Can late results be silently added to an old report?
- Explain version, data cut and impact while keeping the original report traceable.