Intervalos de referencia en pediatría. Una guía de sus formas de cálculo ordenadas según su fortaleza metodológica / Pediatrics reference intervals. A guide of its calculation forms ordered according to their methodological strength

Resumen El objetivo de esta comunicación es proponer una guía de las formas decálculo de los intervalos de referencia (IR) en la población pediátrica ordenándolassegún su fortaleza metodológica. En primer lugar, el proceso recomendadopara definir un IR es el enfoque "directo", en el que se evalúanmuestras de sujetos considerados sanos. En segundo lugar, la convocatoria"indirecta", en la que a los resultados de las muestras de una base dedatos, se aplican criterios de exclusión y procesamientos estadísticos (métodosde Hoffmann y de Bhattacharya). Estos IR presentan poca diferenciacon los obtenidos por datos directos y se pueden considerar equivalentes,con la ventaja de su facilidad y sus costos más bajos. En tercer lugar, estánlos IR obtenidos de la bibliografía. La validación de los datos informadospor el fabricante es la última opción a tener en cuenta. Se reafirma laimportancia de contar con IR adecuados por sus aspectos clínicos y por laseguridad de los pacientes.

Abstract The aim of this communication is to propose a guide on the ways of calculating reference intervals (RI) in the pediatric population, ordering them according to their methodological strength. First, the recommended process to define an RI is the "direct" approach, in which samples of subjects considered healthy are evaluated. Secondly, the "indirect" approach, in which exclusion criteria and statistical processing are applied to the results ofthe samples in a database (Hoffmann and Bhattacharya methods). These RIs show little differences with those obtained by direct data and they can be considered equivalent, with the advantage of their ease and with lower costs. Thirdly, there are RIs that can be obtained from the bibliography. The validation of the data reported by the manufacturer is the last option to consider. The importance of having adequate RIs for their clinical aspects and for the safety of patients is reaffirmed.

Resumo O objetivo desta comunicação é propor um guia sobre as formas de cálculo dos intervalos de referência (IR) na população pediátrica, ordenando os mesmos de acordo com sua fortaleza metodológica. Emprimeiro lugar, o processo recomendado para definir um IR é a abordagem "direta", na qual sãoavaliadas amostras de indivíduos considerados saudáveis. Em segundo lugar, a abordagem "indireta",na qual critérios de exclusão e processamento estatístico (métodos de Hoffmann e Bhattacharya)são aplicados aos resultados das amostras em um banco de dados. Esses IR apresentam poucadiferença com os obtidos por dados diretos, podendo ser considerados equivalentes, com a vantagem de apresentarem facilidade e menor custo. Em terceiro lugar, os IR obtidos da bibliografia. A validadedos dados informados pelo fabricante é a última opção a ser considerada. A importância de termos IRadequados pelos seus aspectos clínicos e pela segurança dos pacientes é reafirmada.

Comparison of reference intervals derived by direct and indirect methods based on compatible datasets obtained in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: Indirect derivation of reference intervals (RIs) from the laboratory information system (LIS) has been recently pursued. We aimed at evaluating the accuracy of indirectly predicted RIs compared to the RIs established directly from healthy subjects in the nationwide RI study in Turkey, targeting 25 major chemistry analytes. METHODS: LIS data were retrieved from the laboratory that performed measurements for the direct study. They were cleaned by limiting to outpatients with age 18-65 years, and by allowing only one record per year per patient. Evaluated were four indirect methods of univariate approach: Hoffmann, Bhattacharya, Arzideh, and Wosniok methods. Power transformation of the LIS dataset was performed either using the power (λ) reported by the IFCC global RI study (the first two methods) or using a λ predicted (the last two). RESULTS: Compared to the direct study dataset, the LIS dataset showed a variable degree of alterations in peak location and shape. Consequently, lower-side peak-shifts observed in sodium, albumin, etc. led to lowered RI limits, whereas higher-side peak-shift observed in triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, etc. led to raised RI limits. Overall, 72% (62-81) of the RI limits predicted by indirect methods showed significant biases from direct RIs. However, the biases observed in total cholesterol, lactic dehydrogenase, etc. were attributed to a higher-side age-bias in LIS dataset. After excluding them, the overall proportion of biased RIs was reduced to 47% (38-54). CONCLUSION: To reduce prediction biases that remained after age adjustment, it is necessary to apply more rigorous data-cleaning before applying indirect methods.

A reference interval study for common biochemical analytes in Eastern Turkey: a comparison of a reference population with laboratory data mining.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to define the reference intervals (RIs) in a Turkish population living in Northeast Turkey (Erzurum) for 34 analytes using direct and indirect methods. In the present study, the regional RIs obtained were compared with other RI studies, primarily the nationwide study performed in Turkey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the direct method, 435 blood samples were collected from a healthy group of females (N = 218) and males (N = 217) aged between 18 and 65 years. The sera were analysed in Ataturk University hospital laboratory using Roche reagents and analysers for 34 analytes. The data from 1,366,948 records were used to calculate the indirect RIs using a modified Bhattacharya method. RESULTS: Significant gender-related differences were observed for 17 analytes. There were also some apparent differences between RIs derived from indirect and direct methods particularly in some analytes (e.g. gamma-glutamyltransferase, creatine kinase, LDL-cholesterol and iron). The RIs derived with the direct method for some, but not all, of the analytes were generally comparable with the RIs reported in the nationwide study and other previous studies in Turkey.There were large differences between RIs derived by the direct method and the expected values shown in the kit insert (e.g. aspartate aminotransferase, total-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and vitamin B12). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide region-specific RIs for 34 analytes determined by the direct and indirect methods. The observed differences in RIs between previous studies could be related to nutritional status and environmental factors.