ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The estimates of biological variation (BV) have traditionally been determined using direct methods, which present limitations. In response to this issue, two papers have been published addressing these limitations by employing indirect methods. Here, we present a new procedure, based on indirect methods that analyses data collected within a multicenter pilot study. Using this method, we obtain CVI estimates and calculate confidence intervals (CI), using the EFLM-BVD CVI estimates as gold standard for comparison. METHODS: Data were collected over a 18-month period for 7 measurands, from 3 Spanish hospitals; inclusion criteria: patients 18-75 years with more than two determinations. For each measurand, four different strategies were carried out based on the coefficient of variation ratio (rCoeV) and based on the use of the bootstrap method (OS1, RS2 and RS3). RS2 and RS3 use symmetry reference change value (RCV) to clean database. RESULTS: RS2 and RS3 had the best correlation for the CVI estimates with respect to EFLM-BVD. RS2 used the symmetric RCV value without eliminating outliers, while RS3 combined RCV and outliers. When using the rCoeV and OS1 strategies, an overestimation of the CVI value was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Our study presents a new strategy for obtaining robust CVI estimates using an indirect method together with the value of symmetric RCV to select the target population. The CVI estimates obtained show a good correlation with those published in the EFLM-BVD database. Furthermore, our strategy can resolve some of the limitations encountered when using direct methods such as calculating confidence intervals.
Subject(s)
Data Mining , Databases, Factual , Humans , Pilot Projects , Reference ValuesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Biological variation data (BV) can be used for different applications, but this depends on the availability of robust and relevant BV data. In this study, we aimed to summarize and appraise BV studies for tumor markers, to examine the influence of study population characteristics and concentrations on BV estimates and to discuss the applicability of BV data for tumor markers in clinical practice. METHODS: Studies reporting BV data for tumor markers related to gastrointestinal, prostate, breast, ovarian, haematological, lung, and dermatological cancers were identified by a systematic literature search. Relevant studies were evaluated by the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC) and meta-analyses were performed for BIVAC compliant studies to deliver global estimates of within-subject (CVI) and between-subject (CVG) BV with 95% CI. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 49 studies delivering results for 22 tumor markers; four papers received BIVAC grade A, 3 B, 27 C and 15 D. Out of these, 29 CVI and 29 CVG estimates met the criteria to be included in the meta-analysis. Robust data are lacking to conclude on the relationship between BV and different disease states and tumor marker concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies a lack of high-quality BV studies for many tumor markers and a need for delivery of BIVAC compliant studies, including in different disease states and tumor marker concentrations. As of yet, the state-of-the-art may still be the most appropriate model to establish analytical performance specifications for the majority of tumor markers.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Checklist , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
Objectives: Numerous biological variation (BV) studies have been performed over the years, but the quality of these studies vary. The objectives of this study were to perform a systematic review and critical appraisal of BV studies on glycosylated albumin and to deliver updated BV estimates for glucose and HbA1c, including recently published high-quality studies such as the European Biological Variation study (EuBIVAS). Methods: Systematic literature searches were performed to identify BV studies. Nine publications not included in a previous review were identified; four for glycosylated albumin, three for glucose, and three for HbA1c. Relevant studies were appraised by the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC). Global BV estimates were derived by meta-analysis of BIVAC-compliant studies in healthy subjects with similar study design. Results: One study received BIVAC grade A, 2B, and 6C. In most cases, the C-grade was associated with deficiencies in statistical analysis. BV estimates for glycosylated albumin were: CVI=1.4% (1.2-2.1) and CVG=5.7% (4.7-10.6), whereas estimates for HbA1c, CVI=1.2% (0.3-2.5), CVG=5.4% (3.3-7.3), and glucose, CVI=5.0% (4.1-12.0), CVG=8.1% (2.7-10.8) did not differ from previously published global estimates. Conclusions: The critical appraisal and rating of BV studies according to their methodological quality, followed by a meta-analysis, generate robust, and reliable BV estimates. This study delivers updated and evidence-based BV estimates for glycosylated albumin, glucose and HbA1c.
