Summary
Introduction. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate is one of the most commonly used laboratory parameters that can help physicians in a variety of clinical situations, particularly when a condition of an inflammatory origin is suspected. This is a long-known assay that has a number of advantages, which allow it to maintain its place among various other laboratory assays for many years now. Recently, however, there are growing doubts about this assay, both in terms of superior clinical biomarkers such as C-reactive protein or procalcitonin, which also provide sufficient information on the activity of the inflammatory process in the body, and the emergence of new alternative assays. As the limitations of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate assay continue to become more apparent, the question of the usefulness and necessity of this laboratory biomarker is increasingly being raised.
Aim. To try to answer the question of whether an assay of erythrocyte sedimentation rate is still useful and necessary in clinical practice.
Objectives. To discuss the features and historical aspects of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate assay, its advantages and disadvantages, its application in clinical practice, its place in comparison with other assays providing similar clinical information, the advantages and disadvantages of possible assay modifications and future trends in the use of the assay itself.
Methods. The PubMed database was searched for publications that had been presented in the last 10 years, and, if necessary, articles that did not fall within this period have been included as well. On the basis of these publications, a review of literature was prepared.
Conclusions. Although an assay of erythrocyte sedimentation rate has been the subject of increasing debate recently, this laboratory parameter may still be very useful and necessary, especially in certain clinical situations.
