la limite panique basse

13:16 Apr 25, 2013 

and if he reckons that going with "panic" is "nonsense", then I would choose something less contentious, whilst yes, clarifying with the client..!

08:14 Apr 25, 2013 

I agree with Michael and would not use panic but rather critical value.

07:12 Apr 25, 2013 

Hi all, thanks so much for your responses. I am pretty sure it is not a typo as it appears to be standard wording on a standard lab report. It is an odd one and I think I will go with lower panic limit and ask the client if they can clarify at all...

Thanks again!

06:06 Apr 25, 2013 

We physicians are not inclined to panic over laboratory values. We might be concerned, but not panicked.

I could appreciate alarm over a high viral count but not a low one. So what is it with this panic nonsense?

It appears to me that there has been some sort of distortion of language at some point in the life history of this text.

Generally the high and low values reported as the normal range in medicine are statistically derived and represent the values two standard deviations above and below the mean. This corresponds to the upper and lower 2.5 percent.

Then there are the so called critical values which often have some biological significance beyond the strictly statistical derivation. On the low end it may simply represent the threshold for detectability.

11:56 Apr 24, 2013 

I was thinking along the line of safe(ty) limits, but prefer Drmanu49's suggestion.

11:53 Apr 24, 2013 

There is a possibility for panic value or critical value

"value under the lower panic/critical threshold"

11:47 Apr 24, 2013 

As you say, worryingly low Ghits for this one, although they do exist and in original language texts, for example : http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/de...

Rare indeed though in Fr or in EN. You might like to put the question to your client.