Literature DB >> 23267246

Application of the stockholm hierarchy to defining the quality of reference intervals and clinical decision limits.

Ken Sikaris1.   

Abstract

The Stockholm Hierarchy is a professional consensus created to define the preferred approaches to defining analytical quality. The quality of a laboratory measurement can also be classified by the quality of the limits that the value is compared with, namely reference interval limits and clinical decision limits. At the highest level in the hierarchy would be placed clinical decision limits based on clinical outcome studies. The second level would include both formal reference interval studies (studies of intra and inter-individual variations) and clinical decision limits based on clinician survey. While these approaches are commonly used, they require a lot of resources to define accurately. Placing laboratory experts on the third level would suggest that although they can also define reference intervals by consensus, theirs aren't as well regarded as clinician defined limits which drive clinical behaviour. Ideally both analytical and clinical considerations should be made, with clinicians and laboratorians both having important information to consider. The fourth level of reference intervals would be for those defined by survey or by regulatory authorities because of the focus on what is commonly achieved rather than what is necessarily correct. Finally, laboratorians know that adopting reference limits from kit inserts or textbook publications is problematic because both methodological issues and reference populations are often not the same as their own. This approach would rank fifth and last. When considering which so called 'common' or 'harmonised reference intervals' to adopt, both these characteristics and the quality of individual studies need to be assessed. Finally, we should also be aware that reference intervals describe health and physiology while clinical decision limits focus on disease and pathology, and unless we understand and consider the two corresponding issues of test specificity and test sensitivity, we cannot assure the quality of the limits that we report.

Year:  2012        PMID: 23267246      PMCID: PMC3529551     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev        ISSN: 0159-8090


  50 in total

1.  The need for a system of quality standards for modern quality management.

Authors:  J O Westgard
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

2.  General strategies to set quality specifications for reliability performance characteristics.

Authors:  C G Fraser
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

3.  Determination and application of desirable analytical performance goals: the ISO/TC 212 approach.

Authors:  L A Kaplan
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

4.  Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress.

Authors:  C Ricós; V Alvarez; F Cava; J V García-Lario; A Hernández; C V Jiménez; J Minchinela; C Perich; M Simón
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

5.  Effect of legislation (CLIA'88) on setting quality specifications for US laboratories.

Authors:  S S Ehrmeyer; R H Laessig
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.713

Review 6.  The influence of analytical bias on diagnostic misclassifications.

Authors:  P H Petersen; C H de Verdier; T Groth; C G Fraser; O Blaabjerg; M Hørder
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  1997-04-25       Impact factor: 3.786

Review 7.  Tolerance limits for short-term analytical bias and analytical imprecision derived from clinical assay specificity.

Authors:  G G Klee
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Reference intervals for 24-h urinary normetanephrine, metanephrine, and 3-methoxy-4-hydroxymandelic acid in hypertensive patients.

Authors:  V Kairisto; P Koskinen; K Mattila; J Puikkonen; A Virtanen; I Kantola; K Irjala
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 8.327

9.  The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  D M Nathan; S Genuth; J Lachin; P Cleary; O Crofford; M Davis; L Rand; C Siebert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Standard versus age-specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges among men with clinically localized prostate cancer: A pathological analysis.

Authors:  A W Partin; S R Criley; E N Subong; H Zincke; P C Walsh; J E Oesterling
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Physiology and its importance for reference intervals.

Authors:  Kenneth A Sikaris
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2014-02

Review 2.  Enhancing the Clinical Value of Medical Laboratory Testing.

Authors:  Kenneth A Sikaris
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2017-11

Review 3.  Standardization in laboratory medicine: Adoption of common reference intervals to the Croatian population.

Authors:  Zlata Flegar-Meštrić; Sonja Perkov; Andrea Radeljak
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2016-03-26

Review 4.  HbA1c as a Diagnostic Test for Diabetes Mellitus - Reviewing the Evidence.

Authors:  Chris Florkowski
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2013-08

5.  Reference intervals for hemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume in an ethnically diverse community sample of Canadian children 2 to 36 months.

Authors:  Jemila S Hamid; Eshetu G Atenafu; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Catherine S Birken; Jonathon L Maguire; Mary Kathryn Bohn; Khosrow Adeli; Mohamed Abdelhaleem; Patricia C Parkin
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.125

Review 6.  Harmonization: the sample, the measurement, and the report.

Authors:  W Greg Miller; Jillian R Tate; Julian H Barth; Graham R D Jones
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 7.  Reference intervals: current status, recent developments and future considerations.

Authors:  Yesim Ozarda
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.313

8.  Critical Risk Results - An Update on International Initiatives.

Authors:  Q Lam; E Ajzner; C A Campbell; A Young
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2016-02-09

9.  Pediatric Reference Intervals for Biochemical Markers: Gaps and Challenges, Recent National Initiatives and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Houman Tahmasebi; Victoria Higgins; Angela W S Fung; Dorothy Truong; Nicole M A White-Al Habeeb; Khosrow Adeli
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2017-03-08

10.  Laboratory reference intervals in the assessment of iron status in young children.

Authors:  Patricia C Parkin; Jemila Hamid; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Kawsari Abdullah; Eshetu G Atenafu; Catherine S Birken; Jonathon L Maguire; Azar Azad; Victoria Higgins; Khosrow Adeli
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2017-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.