Thomas Røraas1, Per H Petersen, Sverre Sandberg. 1. Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories-NOKLUS, Haraldsplass Hospital, Bergen, Norway. thomas.roraas@noklus.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable estimates of within-person biological variation and reference change value are of great importance when interpreting test results, monitoring patients, and setting quality specifications. Little information has been published regarding what experimental design is optimal to achieve the best estimates of within-person biological variation. METHOD: Expected CIs were calculated for different balanced designs for a 2-level nested variance analysis model with varying analytical imprecision. We also simulated data sets based on the model to calculate the power of different study designs for detection of within-person biological variation. RESULTS: The reliability of an estimate for biological variation and a study's power is very much influenced by the study design and by the ratio between analytical imprecision and within-person biological variation. For a fixed number of measurements, it is preferable to have a high number of samples from each individual. Shortcomings in analytical imprecision can be controlled by increasing the number of replicates. CONCLUSIONS: The design of an experiment to estimate biological variation should take into account the analytical imprecision of the method and focus on obtaining the highest possible reliability. Estimates of biological variation should always be reported with CIs.
BACKGROUND: Reliable estimates of within-person biological variation and reference change value are of great importance when interpreting test results, monitoring patients, and setting quality specifications. Little information has been published regarding what experimental design is optimal to achieve the best estimates of within-person biological variation. METHOD: Expected CIs were calculated for different balanced designs for a 2-level nested variance analysis model with varying analytical imprecision. We also simulated data sets based on the model to calculate the power of different study designs for detection of within-person biological variation. RESULTS: The reliability of an estimate for biological variation and a study's power is very much influenced by the study design and by the ratio between analytical imprecision and within-person biological variation. For a fixed number of measurements, it is preferable to have a high number of samples from each individual. Shortcomings in analytical imprecision can be controlled by increasing the number of replicates. CONCLUSIONS: The design of an experiment to estimate biological variation should take into account the analytical imprecision of the method and focus on obtaining the highest possible reliability. Estimates of biological variation should always be reported with CIs.
Authors: Matthew B Rivara; Leila R Zelnick; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Rick Newitt; Russell P Tracy; Mario Kratz; David S Weigle; Bryan R Kestenbaum Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Magid A Fahim; Andrew Hayen; Andrea R Horvath; Goce Dimeski; Amanda Coburn; David W Johnson; Carmel M Hawley; Scott B Campbell; Jonathan C Craig Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Grace G Bushnell; Xiaowei Hong; Rachel M Hartfield; Yining Zhang; Robert S Oakes; Shreyas S Rao; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Jan P Stegemann; Cheri X Deng; Lonnie D Shea Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Meltem Kilercik; Abdurrahman Coskun; Mustafa Serteser; Deniz Inan; Ibrahim Unsal Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb) Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 2.313