Literature DB >> 29729142

Verification of reference intervals in routine clinical laboratories: practical challenges and recommendations.

Yesim Ozarda1, Victoria Higgins2,3, Khosrow Adeli2,3.   

Abstract

Reference intervals (RIs) are fundamental tools used by healthcare and laboratory professionals to interpret patient laboratory test results, ideally enabling differentiation of healthy and unhealthy individuals. Under optimal conditions, a laboratory should perform its own RI study to establish RIs specific for its method and local population. However, the process of developing RIs is often beyond the capabilities of an individual laboratory due to the complex, expensive and time-consuming process to develop them. Therefore, a laboratory can alternatively verify RIs established by an external source. Common RIs can be established by large, multicenter studies and can subsequently be received by local laboratories using various verification procedures. The standard approach to verify RIs recommended by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP28-A3c guideline for routine clinical laboratories is to collect and analyze a minimum of 20 samples from healthy subjects from the local population. Alternatively, "data mining" techniques using large amounts of patient test results can be used to verify RIs, considering both the laboratory method and local population. Although procedures for verifying RIs in the literature and guidelines are clear in theory, gaps remain for the implementation of these procedures in routine clinical laboratories. Pediatric and geriatric age-groups also continue to pose additional challenges in respect of acquiring and verifying RIs. In this article, we review the current guidelines/approaches and challenges to RI verification and provide a practical guide for routine implementation in clinical laboratories.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CLSI EP28-A3c guideline; clinical laboratories; data mining; reference intervals; verification

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29729142     DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med        ISSN: 1434-6621            Impact factor:   3.694


  5 in total

1.  Improving diagnosis of von Willebrand disease: Reference ranges for von Willebrand factor multimer distribution.

Authors:  Inge Vangenechten; Alain Gadisseur
Journal:  Res Pract Thromb Haemost       Date:  2020-07-16

2.  Laboratory-Reported Normal Value Ranges Should Not Be Used to Diagnose Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  Salvador A Forte; Joseph A D'Alonzo; Zachary Wells; Brett Levine; Stephen Sizer; Carl Deirmengian
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-22

3.  Routine clinical chemistry and haematological test reference intervals for healthy adults in the Bhutanese population.

Authors:  Kuenzang Dorji; Sonam ChhodenR; Kinley Wangchuk; Sonam Zangpo; Shacha Tenzin; Chenga Dawa; Puja Devi Samal; Jigme Tshering; Choney Wangmo; Sonam Zangpo; Kinley Dorji; Sonam Tshewang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Interpretable machine learning prediction of all-cause mortality.

Authors:  Wei Qiu; Hugh Chen; Ayse Berceste Dincer; Scott Lundberg; Matt Kaeberlein; Su-In Lee
Journal:  Commun Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-10-03

5.  Basal Values of Biochemical and Hematological Parameters in Elite Athletes.

Authors:  Angel Enrique Díaz Martínez; María José Alcaide Martín; Marcela González-Gross
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.