BACKGROUND: Measurement of parathyroid hormone (PTH) is central in the investigation of pathologies of bone and mineral ion metabolism. Knowledge of the biological variation of an analyte forms an essential part of evaluating a new analyte, enabling the objective assessment of changes in serial results and the utility of reference intervals, as well as establishing laboratory quality specifications. METHODS: This study determined the biological variation of PTH in 20 healthy individuals, which was calculated according to the familiar methods outlined by Fraser and Harris. RESULTS: The within-subject variation was 25.3% and the between-subject variation was 43.4%. The critical difference for sequential values significant at p<0.05 was calculated as 72%. The within-subject variation forms a relatively small part of the reference interval, shown by the low index of individuality of 0.58. Objective analytical quality goals have also been established, revealing achievable optimum performance for imprecision of approximately 6%. The desirable analytical bias goal was approximately 12%. CONCLUSIONS: This study has objectively shown that the analytical precision of current instruments is being achieved contrary to the known problems surrounding the analytical bias for PTH assays. The limitations of using reference intervals for PTH, both in diagnoses and monitoring, are shown.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of parathyroid hormone (PTH) is central in the investigation of pathologies of bone and mineral ion metabolism. Knowledge of the biological variation of an analyte forms an essential part of evaluating a new analyte, enabling the objective assessment of changes in serial results and the utility of reference intervals, as well as establishing laboratory quality specifications. METHODS: This study determined the biological variation of PTH in 20 healthy individuals, which was calculated according to the familiar methods outlined by Fraser and Harris. RESULTS: The within-subject variation was 25.3% and the between-subject variation was 43.4%. The critical difference for sequential values significant at p<0.05 was calculated as 72%. The within-subject variation forms a relatively small part of the reference interval, shown by the low index of individuality of 0.58. Objective analytical quality goals have also been established, revealing achievable optimum performance for imprecision of approximately 6%. The desirable analytical bias goal was approximately 12%. CONCLUSIONS: This study has objectively shown that the analytical precision of current instruments is being achieved contrary to the known problems surrounding the analytical bias for PTH assays. The limitations of using reference intervals for PTH, both in diagnoses and monitoring, are shown.
Authors: Clare Gardham; Paul E Stevens; Michael P Delaney; Marica LeRoux; Adrian Coleman; Edmund J Lamb Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Michela Bottani; Giuseppe Banfi; Elena Guerra; Massimo Locatelli; Aasne K Aarsand; Abdurrahman Coşkun; Jorge Díaz-Garzón; Pilar Fernandez-Calle; Sverre Sandberg; Ferruccio Ceriotti; Elisabet González-Lao; Margarita Simon; Anna Carobene Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-07
Authors: Pamela L Lutsey; Christina M Parrinello; Jeffrey R Misialek; Andy N Hoofnagle; Clark M Henderson; Thomas J Laha; Erin D Michos; John H Eckfeldt; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Marc Blondon; Michael Sachs; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Joachim H Ix; Erin D Michos; Claudia Korcarz; Adam D Gepner; David S Siscovick; Joel D Kaufman; James H Stein; Bryan Kestenbaum; Ian H de Boer Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Gabriel Lima-Oliveira; Giuseppe Lippi; Gian Luca Salvagno; Giorgio Brocco; Gian Cesare Guidi Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb) Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 2.313
Authors: Linnea Huss; Salma Butt; Signe Borgquist; Martin Almquist; Johan Malm; Jonas Manjer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-06-22 Impact factor: 2.506