Reference intervals: past, present, and future.

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1080/10408363.2023.2196746
Kelly Doyle, Dustin R Bunch
{"title":"Reference intervals: past, present, and future.","authors":"Kelly Doyle,&nbsp;Dustin R Bunch","doi":"10.1080/10408363.2023.2196746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical laboratory test results alone are of little value in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions; as such, a clinically actionable cutoff or reference interval is required to provide context for result interpretation. Healthcare practitioners base their diagnoses, follow-up treatments, and subsequent testing on these reference points. However, they may not be aware of inherent limitations related to the definition and derivation of reference intervals. Laboratorians are responsible for providing the reference intervals they report with results. Yet, the establishment and verification of reference intervals using conventional direct methods are complicated by resource constraints or unique patient demographics. To facilitate standardized reference interval best practices, multiple global scientific societies are actively drafting guidelines and seeking funding to promote these initiatives. Numerous national and international multicenter collaborations demonstrate the ability to leverage combined resources to conduct large reference interval studies by direct methods. However, not all demographics are equally accessible. Novel indirect methods are attractive solutions that utilize computational methods to define reference distributions and reference intervals from mixed data sets of pathologic and non-pathologic patient test results. In an effort to make reference intervals more accurate and personalized, individual-based reference intervals are shown to be more useful than population-based reference intervals in detecting clinically significant analyte changes in a patient that might otherwise go unrecognized when using wider, population-based reference intervals. Additionally, continuous reference intervals can provide more accurate ranges as compared to age-based partitions for individuals that are near the ends of the age partition. The advantages and disadvantages of different reference interval approaches as well as the advancement of non-conventional reference interval studies are discussed in this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":10760,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","volume":"60 6","pages":"466-482"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2023.2196746","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Clinical laboratory test results alone are of little value in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions; as such, a clinically actionable cutoff or reference interval is required to provide context for result interpretation. Healthcare practitioners base their diagnoses, follow-up treatments, and subsequent testing on these reference points. However, they may not be aware of inherent limitations related to the definition and derivation of reference intervals. Laboratorians are responsible for providing the reference intervals they report with results. Yet, the establishment and verification of reference intervals using conventional direct methods are complicated by resource constraints or unique patient demographics. To facilitate standardized reference interval best practices, multiple global scientific societies are actively drafting guidelines and seeking funding to promote these initiatives. Numerous national and international multicenter collaborations demonstrate the ability to leverage combined resources to conduct large reference interval studies by direct methods. However, not all demographics are equally accessible. Novel indirect methods are attractive solutions that utilize computational methods to define reference distributions and reference intervals from mixed data sets of pathologic and non-pathologic patient test results. In an effort to make reference intervals more accurate and personalized, individual-based reference intervals are shown to be more useful than population-based reference intervals in detecting clinically significant analyte changes in a patient that might otherwise go unrecognized when using wider, population-based reference intervals. Additionally, continuous reference intervals can provide more accurate ranges as compared to age-based partitions for individuals that are near the ends of the age partition. The advantages and disadvantages of different reference interval approaches as well as the advancement of non-conventional reference interval studies are discussed in this review.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参考间隔:过去、现在和将来。
单独的临床实验室检测结果在诊断、治疗和监测健康状况方面几乎没有价值;因此,需要一个临床可操作的截止点或参考区间,为结果解释提供背景。医疗保健从业人员的诊断、后续治疗和后续测试都基于这些参考点。然而,他们可能没有意识到与参考区间的定义和推导相关的固有局限性。实验室人员负责提供他们报告结果的参考区间。然而,使用传统的直接方法建立和验证参考区间由于资源限制或独特的患者人口统计数据而变得复杂。为了促进标准化参考间隔最佳做法,多个全球科学学会正在积极起草准则并寻求资助,以促进这些举措。许多国家和国际多中心合作展示了利用综合资源通过直接方法进行大参考区间研究的能力。然而,并非所有的人口统计数据都是平等的。新的间接方法是一种有吸引力的解决方案,它利用计算方法从病理和非病理患者检测结果的混合数据集定义参考分布和参考区间。为了使参考区间更加准确和个性化,在检测患者的临床重要分析物变化时,基于个体的参考区间被证明比基于人群的参考区间更有用,否则使用更广泛的基于人群的参考区间可能无法识别。此外,与基于年龄的分区相比,连续的参考间隔可以为接近年龄分区末端的个体提供更准确的范围。本文综述了不同参考区间方法的优缺点以及非常规参考区间研究的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences publishes comprehensive and high quality review articles in all areas of clinical laboratory science, including clinical biochemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, transfusion medicine, genetics, immunology and molecular diagnostics. The reviews critically evaluate the status of current issues in the selected areas, with a focus on clinical laboratory diagnostics and latest advances. The adjective “critical” implies a balanced synthesis of results and conclusions that are frequently contradictory and controversial.
期刊最新文献
Unveiling Parkinson's disease through biomarker research: current insights and future prospects. Research progress of KL-6 in respiratory system diseases. The role of immunophenotyping in common variable immunodeficiency: a narrative review. KIF2C/MCAK a prognostic biomarker and its oncogenic potential in malignant progression, and prognosis of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis as biomarker. Extracellular vesicles in cancer: challenges and opportunities for clinical laboratories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1