Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 6

Issues

A checklist for critical appraisal of studies of biological variation

William A. Bartlett / Federica Braga / Anna Carobene / Abdurrahman Coşkun / Richard Prusa / Pilar Fernandez-Calle
  • Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain, and Quality Analytical Commission of Spanish Society of Clinical Chemistry (SEQC)
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Thomas Røraas
  • Norwegian Quality Improvements of Primary Care Laboratories (NOKLUS), Haraldsplass, Hospital, Bergen, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Neils Jonker / Sverre Sandberg / on behalf of the Biological Variation Working Group, European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)
Published Online: 2015-03-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-1127

Abstract

Data on biological variation are used for many purposes in laboratory medicine but concern exists over the validity of the data reported in some studies. A critical appraisal checklist has been produced by a working group established by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) to enable standardised assessment of existing and future publications of biological variation data. The checklist identifies key elements to be reported in studies to enable safe accurate and effective transport of biological variation data sets across healthcare systems. The checklist is mapped to the domains of a minimum data set required to enable this process.

Keywords: biological variation; checklist; critical appraisal; reference values

Introduction

Biological variation data have many applications in laboratory medicine [1]. Those include setting of analytical performance specifications based on components of biological variation [2]. Models attempt to minimise the ratio of “analytical noise” to the biological signal within clinical laboratory measurements and to ensure that population-based reference intervals are transferable over time and geography. If analytical goals are achieved then this implies that there is no advantage in further improvement of the method in terms of the derived quality standard. The valid use of biological variation data (BVD) in this and other applications requires that they are robust and have characteristics concordant with those of the population to which the measurement procedure is to be applied. This requires that BVD are appropriately quantified, well defined, characterised and understood to enable their translation into safe and effective applications and transportability across populations and health care systems.

There are parallels to be drawn between the production and use of BVD and production and use of reference values [3–8]. The requirements for delivery and characterisation of the latter have been clearly identified by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and more recently in guidance issued by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [9]. The approach identifies need for characterisation of populations studied, methods for production of data, and the statistical treatment of data. A need for this degree of definition is accepted in the context of population-based reference values and is as important in the context of BVD. There are currently no recognised international standards for the production and reporting of BVD.

Review of the literature relating to biological variation (BV) identifies a significant volume of work stretching back over 40 years. The papers published are of varying quality in terms of study designs and presentation. This delivers a high degree of uncertainty around published estimates of BV [10–12]. The heterogeneity in quality of BVD and the use of non-standardised terminology to describe the data in publications are also problematic [13] and provide further complexity for the user. Attempts to make BVD accessible to laboratory medicine specialists have resulted in the delivery of a biological variation data base by Ricós and colleagues which is currently hosted online [14–16]. The criteria they used to construct the database have been published recently [17]. The authors recognised that there is a need to further develop criteria to better characterise BVD and enable selection of BVD from publications for inclusion in their database. In the absence of such criteria compiled data collections are readily available in accessible formats that potentially enable an uncritical application of often poorly characterised data sets.

Work has been undertaken to develop the critical appraisal checklist presented here by the Biological Variation Working Group (BVWG) [18] established by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). The checklist is similar to that published as part of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guideline (STARD) which aimed to raise the quality of publications in that area [19, 20]. The checklist proposed here, by the BVWG, is a tool that will assist laboratory medicine professionals to generate and publish high quality BVD accompanied by relevant metadata to enable safe accurate and effective clinical applications [21]. It provides a framework for end users of BVD to critically appraise existing publications, and for reviewers of future BVD publications to assure a standard of reporting that enables valid clinical application of new BVD studies by those same end users. Studies and publications that are compliant with the checklist will allow effective transportability of appropriately derived and characterised BVD across health care systems as reference data. It follows that valid application of BVD by laboratory medicine specialists at other locations or times requires recording and transmission of key metadata [22]. Those metadata describe and give information concerning the key attributes of BVD that impact on transportability (e.g., demographics of the population from which they were derived, description of the analytical methods used etc). The metadata can be further grouped into a defined “data archetype” to enable consistency and constancy of transmission of BVD through information and knowledge management systems as reference data. It has been proposed that definition of BVD as transportable reference data requires that key metadata forming the archetype can be clearly identified within six domains (e.g., study characteristics, population characteristics, and data characteristics) [21, 23]. The key metadata from each of those domains delivers a minimum data set (MDS) that can be used to define the data archetype as part of a future health informatics standard for onward transmission of BVD.

Adherence to STARD guidelines is required by many journals for studies on diagnostic accuracy providing an important checklist of items to be included in publications. The positive impact of the STARD guidelines has been acknowledged by a Consortium of Laboratory Medicine Journal Editors [24]. The importance of the detail required in publications to enable the insight of readers into the value of research is recognised. The Biological Variation Data Reporting critical appraisal Checklist (BioVarC) is proposed to deliver a similar approach and benefit. It stands as a precursor initiative to production of any formalised standards for delivery and reporting of BV studies, being based on an evaluation of current best practice and the need to ensure incorporation of key metadata into publications that impact upon the utility of BVD. Such standards may enable delivery of a need identified in 1989 by Fraser and Harris to be able to ensure comparability of data by use of common study design and analysis of data [25].

Materials and methods

The BVWG established by the EFLM consisted of laboratory medicine specialist with a remit to establish a critical appraisal checklist for publication of biological variation data. The group has studied existing BV literature and databases and undertaken discussions to enable construction of a critical appraisal checklist applicable to existing and future publications of BVD. The group have further identified a MDS required by users to enable transportability of BVD into local clinical practice.

Results

The checklist is shown in Table 1. It is based on the same structure as the STARD table and identifies six main items for focus with a number of sub items. The sub items have been additionally mapped to minimum data set domains (Table 2; MDS: A–F) previously identified by the BVWG [21, 23]. Domain (F), which relates to a data rating concept, is not included in the checklist at this time as this is a quality measure that requires further development. The attributes identified in MDS domains A–E are identified as describing key metadata to enable safe, accurate and effective use of BVD by third party users. Domains E and F will provide further sources of information to support a users decision-making processes in the context of their clinical practice and support delivery of data through media such as online databases.

Table 1:

Biological Variation Data Reporting Checklist (BiVarC).

Table 2:

Description of the minimum data set, classified in domains, required to enable safe, accurate and effective transportability of biological variation data across health care systems.

Discussion

There are currently no clearly defined internationally recognised standards for production, reporting and transmission of BVD. If BVD are considered to be reference data it follows that they should be characterised and described with sufficient key metadata to enable valid applications in clinical settings. If they are to be used to set quality standards then users of the data must have confidence that the data are the product of appropriately designed and delivered studies and further aware of the confidence limits around the estimates of the variability which they are about to use. Delivery of confidence in both senses will allow appropriate contextual application of BVD sets in clinical settings across populations and health care systems (transportability).

Reviews of BVD available for a range of analytical targets highlight many issues in study designs and reporting [10–12]. This provides a major challenge to users trying to translate the content of individual publications into practice and to those attempting to collate valid data sets into databases for use by multiple users [17]. The problems associated with, and the needs for standardisation of, terminology used in publications of BV studies have also been highlighted by Simundic et al. [13].

The critical appraisal checklist presented here follows an approach that has been shown to raise standards of reporting of studies in other settings (STARD). The BVWG have attempted to identify major items, sub items to be considered in the design, delivery and reporting of BV studies. It should apply equally to laboratory based measurements and quantitative physiological measurements (e.g., blood pressure). Compliance with the checklist will enable authors, reviewers and journal editors to assure that studies are fit for purpose, appropriately powered [26], share common terminology [13] and deliver estimates of BV accompanied by key metadata required to enable valid application of the BVD described [20–22]. Use of BV estimates accompanied by an MDS outlined in Table 2, delivers key metadata to enable transportability of data and further enable compilation of a database of BVD for use in setting of quality standards and other applications. Metadata could include the use of recognised coding systems to enable ease of transmission of relevant detail. Logical observation identifiers names and codes (LOINC) [27], the systemised nomenclature of medicine (SNOMED) [28] and the nomenclature, properties and units coding system (C-NPU) [29] provide examples of such. The MDS provides the foundation for construction of a data archetype to enable consistency and constancy of transmission of BVD through information and knowledge management systems as reference data. This is an important concept. Transportation of poorly defined and characterised BVD to populations that do not share characteristics may not only lead to setting of erroneous quality standards, but may also deliver patient safety issues. As an example of the latter if BVD are used to set reference change values, significance of change may be misidentified in the target population if they do not exhibit the same biological variation as the population from which they were derived.

The concept of scoring publications containing BVD has been described by Perich et al. [17]. It is proposed by the BVWG that a more sophisticated score should be included in the MDS to accompany BVD as a quality measure to further aid to users as a quality measure [18]. This concept needs to be further developed and has parallels with the scoring of medical evidence.

The checklist described here is based on expert opinion and provides an interim framework that may be used prospectively to improve future reporting of BVD and retrospectively to enable critical appraisal of existing publications. It will benefit from future iterations and develop in the event of delivery of defined and agreed standards for generation and reporting of BVD. Development of specific standards for the generation, reporting and transmission of BVD should also be considered by appropriate bodies [21]. Until such are available the detailed supporting information could be supplied by a series of publications similar to those developed by the IFCC and applying to reference values [3–8].

The practical application of this current checklist will be aided by current and future developments. Currently delivery of a pro forma set of focused questions by the BVWG and others will enable users to deliver a practical objective assessment of compliance of BVD studies with the high level checklist. This tool is being developed for future publication and to be made available online. In the future standardised approaches to data management might be greatly aided by the creation of a bespoke statistical package that supports appropriate design of studies and data analysis. Availability and internet-based access to such tools and supporting information should increase understanding of factors that impact upon the utility of BVD, enable valid application of the data and drive up the quality of future published studies.

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Financial support: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

  • 1.

    Fraser CG. Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Petersen PH, Fraser CG, Kallner A, Kenny D. Strategies to set global analytical quality specifications in laboratory medicine. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:475–585.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Solberg HE. Approved recommendations on the theory of reference values. Part 1. The concept of reference values. Clin Chim Acta 1987;165:111–8.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    PetitClerc C, Solberg HE. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory of reference values. Part 2. Selection of individuals for the production of reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:639–44.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    PetitClerc C, Solberg HE. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory of reference values. Part 3. Preparation of individuals and collection of specimens for the production of reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1988;26:593–8.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Solberg HE, Stamm D. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry, Scientific Division: approved recommendation on the theory of reference values. Part 4. Control of analytical variation in the production, transfer and application of reference values. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1991;29:531–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Solberg HE. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory and of reference values. Part 5. The statistical treatment of collected reference values. Determination of reference limits. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:645–56.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Dybkaer R, Solberg HE. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory and of reference values. Part 6. Presentation of observed values related to reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:657–62.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Horowitz GL, Altaee S, Boyd JC, Ceriotti F, Garg U, Horn P, et al. Establishing, and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved guideline, 3rd ed. CLSI document EP28-A3c. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2010;28.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Miller WG, Bruns DE, Hortin GL, Sandberg S, Aakre KM, McQueen MJ, et al. Current issues in measurement and reporting of urinary albumin excretion. Clin Chem 2009; 55:24–38.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Braga F, Dolci A, Mosca A, Panteghini M. Biological variation of glycated hemoglobin. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:1006–10.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Carobene A, Braga F, Roraas T, Sandberg S, Bartlett WA. A systematic review of data on biological variation for alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase and γ-glutamyl transferase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1997–2007.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Simundic A, Kackov S, Miler M, Fraser CG, Petersen PH. Terms and symbols used on studies of biological variation: the need for harmonisation. Clin Chem 2015;61:438–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Ricós C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59: 491–500.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Ricós C, Iglesias N, Garcia-Lario JV, Simon M, Cava F, Hernandez A, et al. Within-subject biological variation in disease: collated data and clinical consequences. Ann Clin Biochem 2007;44:343–52.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Desirable biological variation database specification. Available from: www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm. Accessed 11 November, 2014.

  • 17.

    Perich C, Minchinela J, Ricos C, Fernández-Calle P, Doménech MV, Simón M, et al. Biological variation database: structure and criteria used for generation and update. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:299–305.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Biological Variation Working Group established by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Available from: http://efcclm.eu/index.php/wg-biological-variation.html. Accessed 13 November, 2014.

  • 19.

    STARD guidelines. Available from: http://www.stard-statement.org/. Accessed 11 November, 2014.

  • 20.

    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwiq LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem 2003;49:1–6.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Bartlett WA. Biological variation data: the need for appraisal of the evidence base. In: Renz H, Tauber R, editors. Advances in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Bartlett WA, Braga F, Carobene A, Coskun A, Prusa R, Fernandez-Calle P, et al. Definition of a minimum data set to accompany indices of biological variation. 2014 International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Poster Abstract -IFCC WorldLab Istanbul 2014. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52(Special Supp):S315.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Bartlett WA, Braga F, Carobene A, Coskun A, Prusa R, Fernandez-Calle P, et al. Identification of key metadata to enable safe accurate and effective transferability of biological variation data. 2014 American Association of Clinical Chemistry Annual Meeting AACC, Chicago, Illinois. Available from: https://www.aacc.org/∼/media/files/annual-meeting/2014/abstracts/factors-affecting-test-results.pdf?la=en Abstract A259. Accessed 1 February, 2015.

  • 24.

    Rifai N, Annesley TM, Berg JP, Brugnara C, Delvin E, Lamb EJ, et al. An appeal to medical journal editors: the need for a full description of laboratory methods and specimen handling in clinical study reports. Statement by the Consortium of Laboratory Medicine Journal Editors. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:105–7.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Fraser CG, Harris EK. Generation and application of data on biological variation in clinical chemistry. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 1989;27:409–37.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Roraas T, Petersen PH, Sandberg S. Confidence intervals and power calculations for within-subject biological variation: effect of analytical variation, number of replicates, number of samples and number of individuals. Clin Chem 2012;58:1306–13.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    LOINC, Logical observation identifiers names and codes. Available from: https://loinc.org/ Accessed 14 November, 2014.

  • 28.

    SNOMED, Systemised nomenclature of medicine. Available from: http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct. Accessed 14 November, 2014.

  • 29.

    Nomenclature, Properties and Units (C-NPU) in collaboration between the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). Available from: http://www.ifcc.org/ifcc-scientific-division/sd-committees/c-npu/. Accessed 16 November, 2014.

About the article

Corresponding author: William A. Bartlett, Blood Sciences Department, Diagnostics Group Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland DD1 9SY, UK, Phone: +44 1382 632512, Fax: +44 1382 645333, E-mail: ; and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Biological Variation Working Group, http://efcclm.eu/science/wg-biological-variation, www.biologicalvariation.com


Received: 2014-11-17

Accepted: 2015-02-16

Published Online: 2015-03-18

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 879–885, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-1127.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Shuo Wang, Runqing Mu, Xin Zhang, Ke Yun, Hong Shang, and Min Zhao
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2020, Page 000456321989911
[2]
Anna Carobene, Thomas Røraas, Una Ørvim Sølvik, Marit Sverresdotter Sylte, Sverre Sandberg, Elena Guerra, Irene Marino, Niels Jonker, Gerhard Barla, William A Bartlett, Pilar Fernandez-Calle, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Francesca Tosato, Mario Plebani, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Mustafa Serteser, Ibrahim Unsal, and Ferruccio Ceriotti
Clinical Chemistry, 2017, Volume 63, Number 6, Page 1141
[3]
Anna Carobene, Irene Marino, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Mustafa Serteser, Ibrahim Unsal, Elena Guerra, William A Bartlett, Sverre Sandberg, Aasne Karine Aarsand, Marit Sverresdotter Sylte, Thomas Røraas, Una Ørvim Sølvik, Pilar Fernandez-Calle, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Francesca Tosato, Mario Plebani, Niels Jonker, Gerhard Barla, and Ferruccio Ceriotti
Clinical Chemistry, 2017, Volume 63, Number 9, Page 1527
[4]
Joanne L Carter, Christopher T Parker, Paul E Stevens, Gillian Eaglestone, Sarah Knight, Christopher K T Farmer, and Edmund J Lamb
Clinical Chemistry, 2016, Volume 62, Number 6, Page 876
[5]
Sterling T Bennett
Clinical Chemistry, 2018, Volume 64, Number 3, Page 427
[6]
Aasne K Aarsand, Thomas Røraas, Pilar Fernandez-Calle, Carmen Ricos, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Niels Jonker, Carmen Perich, Elisabet González-Lao, Anna Carobene, Joana Minchinela, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Margarita Simón, Virtudes Álvarez, William A Bartlett, Pilar Fernández-Fernández, Beatriz Boned, Federica Braga, Zoraida Corte, Berna Aslan, and Sverre Sandberg
Clinical Chemistry, 2018, Volume 64, Number 3, Page 501
[7]
Judith M Hilderink, Noreen van der Linden, Dorien M Kimenai, Elisabeth J R Litjens, Lieke J J Klinkenberg, Breshna M Aref, Fahra Aziz, Jeroen P Kooman, Roger J M W Rennenberg, Otto Bekers, Richard P Koopmans, and Steven J R Meex
Clinical Chemistry, 2018, Volume 64, Number 5, Page 851
[8]
Jooyoung Cho, Dong Min Seo, and Young Uh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 2020, Volume 40, Number 3, Page 201
[9]
Arvind Kumar Gupta, Arathi Kunnumbrath, Sakshi Garg Tayal, Utpal Kumar, Vandna Bharati, Michael Leonard Anthony, Neha Singh, Harish Chandra, and Nilotpal Chowdhury
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2019, Page 1
[10]
Anne Tranberg Madsen, Johanne Andersen Hojbjerg, Boe Sandahl Sorensen, and Anne Winther-Larsen
EBioMedicine, 2019
[11]
Arnaud Josiane, Marina Patriarca, Béatrice Fofou-Caillierez Ma’atem, Montserrat González-estecha, MªCarmen González gómez, Irene De Graaf, Patriarca Valeria, Martine Ropert-Bouchet, Liesbeth Schröer-Janssen, Carla Siebelder, Te Winkel Marieke, Ventura Alemany Montserrat, and Cas Weykamp
Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 2019, Page 126414
[12]
Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Pilar Fernández–Calle, Joana Minchinela, Aasne K. Aarsand, William A. Bartlett, Berna Aslan, Beatriz Boned, Federica Braga, Anna Carobene, Abdurrahman Coskun, Elisabet Gonzalez-Lao, Niels Jonker, Fernando Marques-Garcia, Carmen Perich, Carmen Ricos, Margarita Simón, and Sverre Sandberg
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2019, Volume 495, Page 467
[13]
Anna van der Veen, Martijn van Faassen, Wilhelmina H.A. de Jong, André P. van Beek, D.A. Janneke Dijck-Brouwer, and Ido P. Kema
Clinical Biochemistry, 2019, Volume 68, Page 15
[14]
F. Ceriotti, P. Fernandez-Calle, G. G. Klee, G. Nordin, S. Sandberg, T. Streichert, J.-L. Vives-Corrons, and M. Panteghini
Laboratornaya sluzhba, 2019, Volume 8, Number 1, Page 93
[15]
Ceri Rowe, Alice J. Sitch, Jonathan Barratt, Elizabeth A. Brettell, Paul Cockwell, R. Neil Dalton, Jon J. Deeks, Gillian Eaglestone, Tracy Pellatt-Higgins, Philip A. Kalra, Kamlesh Khunti, Fiona C. Loud, Frances S. Morris, Ryan S. Ottridge, Paul E. Stevens, Claire C. Sharpe, Andrew J. Sutton, Maarten W. Taal, and Edmund J. Lamb
Kidney International, 2019, Volume 96, Number 2, Page 429
[16]
Jia Hui Chai, Robert Flatman, Benjamin Teis, Sunil Kumar Sethi, Tony Badrick, and Tze Ping Loh
Pathology, 2019, Volume 51, Number 3, Page 281
[17]
Yuping Zeng, He He, Ken Qin, Mei Zhang, Zhenmei An, and Hengjian Huang
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2019, Volume 492, Page 57
[18]
E. González-Lao, Z. Corte, M. Simón, C. Ricós, A. Coskun, F. Braga, A.K. Aarsand, A. Carobene, W.A. Bartlett, B. Boned, B. Asland, J. Díaz-Garzón, F. Marqués-García, J. Minchinela, C. Perich, P. Fernández-Calle, T. Roraas, P. Fernández-Fernández, N. Jonker, and S. Sandberg
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2019, Volume 488, Page 61
[19]
Mesude Falay, Mehmet Senes, Selcuk Korkmaz, Turan Turhan, Murat Okay, Berna Afacan Öztürk, Doğan Yücel, and Gulsum Ozet
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 2018
[20]
Peter S Hall, Elizabeth D Mitchell, Alison F Smith, David A Cairns, Michael Messenger, Michelle Hutchinson, Judy Wright, Karen Vinall-Collier, Claire Corps, Patrick Hamilton, David Meads, and Andrew Lewington
Health Technology Assessment, 2018, Volume 22, Number 32, Page 1
[21]
Dagan Yang, Qian Cai, Xinglun Qi, and Yunxian Zhou
Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Volume 38, Number 5, Page 431
[22]
Mustafa K. Özçürümez and Rainer Haeckel
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2018, Page 1
[25]
Raúl Rigo Bonnin, Ruth Cano Corres, Núria Alonso Nieva, María Jesús Andrés Otero, Francesca Canalias Reverter, Sara Esteve Poblador, Francisco Javier Gella Tomás, Bernardino González de la Presa, Rosa López Martínez, and Inmaculada Pérez de Algaba Fuentes
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2018
[26]
Cihan Coskun, Berrin Bercik Inal, Humeyra Ozturk Emre, Sehide Baz, Alper Gumus, Derya Sonmez, Bagnu Orhan, Muhammed Emin Duz, Erdinc Serin, and Macit Koldas
Turkish Journal of Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 0, Number 0
[27]
Sabrina Buoro, Anna Carobene, Michela Seghezzi, Barbara Manenti, Aurelio Pacioni, Ferruccio Ceriotti, Cosimo Ottomano, and Giuseppe Lippi
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2017, Volume 473, Page 147
[29]
Mette Brokner, Helle Borgstrøm Hager, and Morten Lindberg
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2017, Page 1
[30]
Judith M. Hilderink, Lieke J.J. Klinkenberg, Kristin M. Aakre, Norbert C.J. de Wit, Yvonne M.C. Henskens, Noreen van der Linden, Otto Bekers, Roger J.M.W. Rennenberg, Richard P. Koopmans, and Steven J.R. Meex
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2017, Volume 55, Number 7
[31]
Sabrina Buoro, Michela Seghezzi, Barbara Manenti, Aurelio Pacioni, Anna Carobene, Ferruccio Ceriotti, Cosimo Ottomano, and Giuseppe Lippi
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2017, Volume 470, Page 125
[32]
Sara Pasqualetti, Federica Braga, and Mauro Panteghini
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 587
[33]
Carmen Ricós, Virtudes Álvarez, Joana Minchinela, Pilar Fernández-Calle, Carmen Perich, Beatriz Boned, Elisabet González, Margarita Simón, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, José Vicente García-Lario, Fernando Cava, Pilar Fernández-Fernández, Zoraida Corte, and Carmen Biosca
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2017, Volume 37, Number 1, Page 47
[34]
Øyvind Skadberg, Sverre Sandberg, Thomas Røraas, Per Hyltoft Petersen, Hilde Sellevoll, Einar Svarstad, Kristin Sæle, and Kristin Moberg Aakre
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2016, Volume 76, Number 8, Page 645
[35]
Oscar M. Camacho, Johan Sommarström, Krishna Prasad, and Anthony Cunningham
Practical Laboratory Medicine, 2016, Volume 5, Page 47
[36]
Selcuk Matyar, Ozlem Goruroglu Ozturk, Esin Ziyanoglu Karacor, Sedefgul Yuzbasioglu Ariyurek, Gulhan Sahin, Filiz Kibar, Akgun Yaman, and Tamer Inal
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2016, Volume 30, Number 6, Page 1081
[37]
Federica Braga and Mauro Panteghini
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2016, Volume 53, Number 5, Page 313
[38]
Elizabeta Topic, Nora Nikolac, Mauro Panteghini, Elvar Theodorsson, Gian Luca Salvagno, Marijana Miler, Ana-Maria Simundic, Ilenia Infusino, Gunnar Nordin, and Sten Westgard
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2015, Volume 53, Number 11

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in