Search

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Biochemistry / Turk Biyokimya Dergisi is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Reference Intervals (RIs) and clinical decision limits (CDLs) are a vital part of the information supplied by laboratories to support the interpretation of numerical clinical pathology results. RIs describe the typical distribution of results seen in a healthy reference population while CDLs are associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes or are diagnostic for the presence of a specific disease. However, as the two concepts are sometimes confused, there is a need to clarify the differences between these terms and to ensure they are easily distinguished, especially because CDLs have a clinical association with specific diseases and risks, thereby implying that effective clinical interventions are available. It is important to note that, because population-based RIs are derived from the range of values expected in a typical community population, laboratory results that fall outside a RI do not necessarily indicate a disease but rather that additional medical follow-up and/or treatment may be warranted. In contrast, CDLs are associated with a risk of specific adverse outcomes, and are commonly used to interpret laboratory test results, including lipid parameters, glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and tumor markers, to determine risk of disease, to diagnose or to treat. In recent years, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Committee on Reference Intervals and Decision Limits (C-RIDL) has focused primarily on RIs and has performed multicenter studies to obtain common RIs. However, the broader responsibility of the Committee, from its name, includes “decision limits”. C-RIDL now aims to emphasize the importance of the correct use of both RIs and CDLs and to encourage laboratories to specify the appropriate information to clinicians as needed. This review discusses RIs and CDLs in detail, describes the similarities and the differences between these two important tools in laboratory medicine, and clearly explains the processes used to define them. C-RIDL encourages the involvement of laboratory professionals in the establishment of both RIs and CDLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study is a part of the IFCC-global study to derive reference intervals (RIs) for 28 chemistry analytes in Saudis. Method: Healthy individuals (n=826) aged ≥18 years were recruited using the global study protocol. All specimens were measured using an Architect analyzer. RIs were derived by both parametric and non-parametric methods for comparative purpose. The need for secondary exclusion of reference values based on latent abnormal values exclusion (LAVE) method was examined. The magnitude of variation attributable to gender, ages and regions was calculated by the standard deviation ratio (SDR). Sources of variations: age, BMI, physical exercise and smoking levels were investigated by using the multiple regression analysis. Results: SDRs for gender, age and regional differences were significant for 14, 8 and 2 analytes, respectively. BMI-related changes in test results were noted conspicuously for CRP. For some metabolic related parameters the ranges of RIs by non-parametric method were wider than by the parametric method and RIs derived using the LAVE method were significantly different than those without it. RIs were derived with and without gender partition (BMI, drugs and supplements were considered). Conclusions: RIs applicable to Saudis were established for the majority of chemistry analytes, whereas gender, regional and age RI partitioning was required for some analytes. The elevated upper limits of metabolic analytes reflects the existence of high prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Saudi population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]