Validating common reference intervals in routine laboratories.

Common reference intervals for numerical pathology tests have been proposed for many years as an improvement over the common situation where individual laboratories establish or select and validate their own intervals. However it is important that any intervals that are developed for common use are themselves validated for use in individual laboratories. There are three main aspects to consider, the appropriateness of the interval, methodological factors and population factors. Techniques for assessing method biases are reasonably straightforward with the use of shared samples and appropriate external quality assurance schemes. Validating the local population, which also encompasses the laboratory's method, can be done using a number of healthy subjects, the more the better, or by various "data mining" techniques using the results of tests performed on routine patients. In any of these methods there is the need to consider the selection of subjects, the statistical approach and the acceptance criteria. Only if a proposed common reference interval can be shown to be appropriate in routine laboratories can it become widely adopted and become truly "common".

[1]  X. Fuentes-Arderiu,et al.  Indirect reference limits estimated from patients' results by three mathematical procedures. , 1999, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[2]  M Hørder,et al.  Analytical goals for the acceptance of common reference intervals for laboratories throughout a geographical area. , 1988, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[3]  Mustafa Serteser,et al.  Indirect reference intervals estimated from hospitalized population for thyrotropin and free thyroxine. , 2010, Croatian medical journal.

[4]  R. Hoffmann STATISTICS IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE. , 1963, JAMA.

[5]  A. Kallner,et al.  Can Age and Sex Related Reference Intervals Be Derived for Non-Healthy and Non-Diseased Individuals from Results of Measurements in Primary Health Care? , 2000, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[6]  Cas Weykamp,et al.  Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. , 2011, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  Ferruccio Ceriotti,et al.  Obtaining reference intervals traceable to reference measurement systems: is it possible, who is responsible, what is the strategy? , 2012, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[8]  Cautions in the adoption of common reference intervals. , 2008, Clinical chemistry.

[9]  Callum G. Fraser,et al.  Biological Variation: From Principles to Practice , 2001 .

[10]  P. H. Petersen,et al.  On establishment of common reference intervals in laboratory medicine. , 1996, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies.

[11]  Ferruccio Ceriotti,et al.  Reference intervals: the way forward , 2009, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[12]  C. Ricós,et al.  Analytical quality specifications for common reference intervals , 2004, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[13]  C G Bhattacharya,et al.  A simple method of resolution of a distribution into gaussian components. , 1967, Biometrics.

[14]  Bhattacharya Cg A simple method of resolution of a distribution into gaussian components. , 1967 .

[15]  The IFCC recommendations for determining reference intervals: strengths and limitations / Die IFCC-Empfehlungen für die Bestimmung von Referenzbereichen: Stärken und Schwächen , 2009 .

[16]  Antony Barker,et al.  The case for common reference intervals. , 2004, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.