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

Journal of Laboratory Medicine

Official Journal of the German Society of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Schuff-Werner, Peter

Ed. by Ahmad-Nejad, Parviz / Bidlingmaier, Martin / Bietenbeck, Andreas / Conrad, Karsten / Findeisen, Peter / Fraunberger, Peter / Ghebremedhin, Beniam / Holdenrieder, Stefan / Kiehntopf, Michael / Klein, Hanns-Georg / Kohse, Klaus P. / Kratzsch, Jürgen / Luppa, Peter B. / Meyer, Alexander von / Nebe, Carl Thomas / Orth, Matthias / Röhrig-Herzog, Gabriele / Sack, Ulrich / Steimer, Werner / Weber, Thomas / Wieland, Eberhard / Winter, Christof / Zettl, Uwe K.


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.389

CiteScore 2018: 0.22

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.156
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.089

Print + Online
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 40, Issue 3

Issues

Equivalence limits of reference intervals for partitioning of population data. Relevant differences of reference limits

Rainer Haeckel / Werner Wosniok / Farhad Arzideh
Published Online: 2016-04-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2016-0002

Abstract:

Reference limits need to be compared with each other for two main purposes: to evaluate the clinical relevance of a possible difference, if limits are obtained from the same population but at different time periods, or to check if limits derived from two different subpopulations can be considered as identical. The comparison of reference limits required for the periodic reviewing of applied reference limits and for checking the transferability of reference limits adopted from external sources according to international standards is an example for the first case. In the second case, a decision is intended whether the full population has to be partitioned (stratified) into the subpopulations under consideration (e.g. males and females). In both situations, differences may be due either to analytical errors, to biological differences or to both effects. The difference between reference limits may be acceptable if it is within permissible limits. For establishing permissible limits, the concept of equivalence limits was adopted to assess the relevance of differences between two reference limits. The concept bases on the permissible uncertainty at a particular reference limit. The permissible uncertainty is quantified by the permissible analytical standard deviation derived from the empirical biological variation as recently proposed. It is defined separately for lower and upper reference limits. The concept proposed can be condensed to simple equations.

Keywords: comparison of reference limits; partitioning; stratification

References

  • 1.

    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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    CLSI/IFCC. Defining, establishing, and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved guideline – third edition. CLSI document C28-P3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008;28:1–50.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Harris EK, Boyd JC. On dividing reference data into subgroups to produce separate reference ranges. Clin Chem 1990;36:265–70.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Lahti A, Hylthoft Petersen R, Boyd JC. Impact of subgroup prevalences on partitioning of Gaussian-distributed reference values. Clin Chem 2002;48:1987–99.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Lahti A, Hylthoft Petersen R, Boyd JC, Rustad P, Laake P, Solberg HE. Partitioning of nongaussian-distributed biochemical reference data into subgroups. Clin Chem 2004;50:891–900.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Gellerstedt M, Hylthoft Petersen P. Partitioning reference values for several subpopulations using cluster analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1026–32.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    International Standard Organisation. Medical Laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence, ISO 15189, 2nd ed, 2007:1–40 (Note that a third edition is in preparation).Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Al Sahreef N. Permissible performance limits of regression analyses in method comparisons. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1805–16.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Gurr E, Peil B. Permissible limits for uncertainty of measurement in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1161–71.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Gurr E, Wosniok W, Peil B. Supplements to a recent proposal for permissible uncertainty of measurements in laboratory medicine. J Lab Med 2016;40:141–5.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    International Standard Organisation. In vitro diagnostic test systems – requirements for blood glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. ISO 15197, 1st ed. 2003:1–33.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Ricos C, Garcia-Lario JV, Alvarez V, Cava F, Domenech M, Hemander A, et al. 2008. www.westgard.com/guest17.htm, updated 2008.

  • 13.

    Permissible imprecision (pCVA) and combined uncertainty (pU%) for a particular measurand (xi). www.dgkl.de, assessed 01.03.2015.

  • 14.

    Arzideh F, Wosniok W, Haeckel R. Reference limits of plasma and serum creatinine concentrations from intra-laboratory data bases of several German and Italian medical centres. Comparison between direct and indirect procedures. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:215–21.Google Scholar

  • 15.

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

  • 16.

    Katayev A, Balciza C, Seccombe DW. Establishing reference intervals for clinical laboratory test results. Is there a better way? Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:180–6.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Arzideh F. Proposed classification of various limit values (guide values) used in assisting the interpretation of quantitative laboratory test results. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:494–7.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Haeckel R, Wosniok W. Observed unknown distributions of clinical chemistry quantities should be considered to be log-normal: a proposal. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48: 1393–6.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Aitchison J, Brown JA. The lognormal distribution. Cambridge: University Press, 1969:1–176.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Johnson NL, Katz S, Balakrishnan N. Continuous univariate distributions. New York: J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994:1–756.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/log-normal_distribution.

About the article

Correspondence: Prof. Dr. Rainer Haeckel, Zentrum für Laboratoriumsmedizin, Katrepeler Landstraße 45e, 28357 Bremen, Germany, E-Mail:


Received: 2016-01-06

Accepted: 2016-02-24

Published Online: 2016-04-20

Published in Print: 2016-06-01


Citation Information: LaboratoriumsMedizin, Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 199–205, ISSN (Online) 1439-0477, ISSN (Print) 0342-3026, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2016-0002.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in