Abstract
Objectives
There are generally two major reasons for the comparison of reference intervals (RIs): when externally determined RIs (from the literature or provided by a manufacturer) are compared with presently used intra-laboratory RIs and when indirectly estimated RIs are compared with directly established RIs. Discrepancies within these comparisons may occur for two reasons: 1. the pre-analytical and/or analytical conditions do not agree and/or 2. biological variables influencing the establishment of RIs have not been considered adequately. If directly and indirectly estimated reference intervals (RIs) are compared with each other, they very often agree. Sometimes, however, a comparison may differ, with the reason for any discrepancy not being further studied. A major reason for differences in the comparison of RIs is that the requirement for stratification has been neglected.
Methods
The present report outlines the consequences to RI comparison if stratification is neglected during RI determination with the main variables affecting RIs being sex and age. Alanine aminotransferase was chosen as an example in which the RIs depend on both these factors.
Results
Both direct and indirect approaches lead to erroneous RIs if stratification for variables which are known to affect the estimation of RIs is not performed adequately. However, failing to include a required stratification in procedures for directly determined RIs affects the outcome in a different way to indirectly determined RIs.
Conclusions
The resulting difference between direct and indirect RIs is often misinterpreted as an incorrect RI estimation of the indirect method.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Dr. Alexander Krebs, Dr. Antje Torge and Dr. Mustafa Özcürümez for providing “big data” pools of patients data.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
References
1. Sikaris, K. Physiology and its importance for reference intervals. Clin Biochem Rev 2014;35:3–14.Search in Google Scholar
2. Farrell, CJL, Nguyen, L. Indirect reference intervals: harnessing the power of stored laboratory data. Clin Biochem Rev 2019;40:99–111.10.33176/testSearch in Google Scholar
3. Jones, GRD, Haeckel, R, Loh, TP, Sikaris, K, Streichert, T, Katayev, A, et al.. Indirect methods for reference interval determination – review and recommendations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:20–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0073.Search in Google Scholar
4. Özcürümez, M, Haeckel, R. Biological variables influencing the determination of reference limits. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2018;78:337–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2018.1471617.Search in Google Scholar
5. Haeckel, R, Wosniok, W, Streichert, T. Review of potentials and limitations of indirect approaches for estimating reference limits/intervals of quantitative procedures in laboratory medicine. J Lab Med 2021;45:35–53.10.1515/labmed-2020-0131Search in Google Scholar
6. Özarda, Y, Aslan, D. Use of total patient data for indirect estimation of reference intervals for 40 clinical chemical analytes in Turkey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:867–76.10.1515/CCLM.2006.139Search in Google Scholar
7. Schumann, G, Klauke, R. New IFCC reference procedures for the determination of catalytic activity concentrations of five enzymes in serum: preliminary upper reference limits obtained in hospitalized subjects. Clin Chim Acta 2003;327:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-8981(02)00341-8.Search in Google Scholar
8. Rustad, P, Felding, P, Franzon, L, Kairisto, V, Lahti, A, Martensson, A, et al.. The Nordic reference interval project 2000: recommended reference intervals for 25 common biochemical properties. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2004;64:271–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365510410006324.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Wosniok, W, Haeckel, R. A new estimation of reference intervals: truncated minimum chi-square (TMC) approach. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1933–47. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1341.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Haeckel, R, Wosniok, W, Arzideh, F. A plea for intra-laboratory reference limits. Part 1. General considerations and concepts for determination. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1033–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2007.249.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Ishihara, I, Boyd, JC. An appraisal of statistical procedures used in derivation of reference interval. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1537–51.10.1515/CCLM.2010.319Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Den Elzen WPJ, Brouwer, N, Thelen, MH, Le Cessie, S, Haagen, IA, Cobbaert, CM. NUMBER. Standardized reference intervals in The Netherlands using a ´big data´approach. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:42–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0462.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. German Society of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Decision limits/guideline values. Available from: www.dgkl.de/arbeitsgruppen/entscheidungsgrenzen-richtwerte [Accessed 18 Dec 2018].Search in Google Scholar
14. Haeckel, R, Wosniok, W, Arzideh, F. Equivalence limits of reference intervals for partitioning of population data. Relevant differences of reference limits. J Lab Med 2016;40:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2016-0002.Search in Google Scholar
15. Torge, A, Haeckel, R, Özcürümez, M, Krebs, A, Junker, R. Diurnal variation of leucocyte counts affects the estimation of reference intervals. J Lab Med 2021;45:121–4.10.1515/labmed-2020-0132Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
