Search

Reference intervals are a vital part of the information supplied by clinical laboratories to support interpretation of numerical pathology results such as are produced in clinical chemistry and hematology laboratories. The traditional method for establishing reference intervals, known as the direct approach, is based on collecting samples from members of a preselected reference population, making the measurements and then determining the intervals. An alternative approach is to perform analysis of results generated as part of routine pathology testing and using appropriate statistical techniques to determine reference intervals. This is known as the indirect approach. This paper from a working group of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) Committee on Reference Intervals and Decision Limits (C-RIDL) aims to summarize current thinking on indirect approaches to reference intervals. The indirect approach has some major potential advantages compared with direct methods. The processes are faster, cheaper and do not involve patient inconvenience, discomfort or the risks associated with generating new patient health information. Indirect methods also use the same preanalytical and analytical techniques used for patient management and can provide very large numbers for assessment. Limitations to the indirect methods include possible effects of diseased subpopulations on the derived interval. The IFCC C-RIDL aims to encourage the use of indirect methods to establish and verify reference intervals, to promote publication of such intervals with clear explanation of the process used and also to support the development of improved statistical techniques for these studies.

Objective: To compare the lumbar infusion test and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tap test for predicting the outcome of shunt surgery in patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. Methods: 68 patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus were studied. The absence of preceding history indicated idiopathic disease in 75% of these. All patients were assessed twice with walking and psychometric tests before lumbar infusion test and tap test assessments. The lumbar infusion test was done using a constant infusion rate (0.80 ml/min) and regarded as positive if the steady state CSF plateau pressure reached levels of > 22 mm Hg (resistance to outflow > 14 mm Hg/ml/min). The tap test was regarded as positive if two or more of four different test items improved after CSF removal. As the variability in baseline test results was large, the better of two evaluations was used in comparisons with the results after CSF removal, as well as to evaluate the outcome after shunt surgery. Only patients with a positive lumbar infusion test or a positive tap test had surgery. Results: The results of the CSF tap test and the lumbar infusion test agreed in only 45% of the patients. Of the total cohort, 47 (69%) had positive test results and were operated on; 45 (96%) of these reported subjective improvement, and postoperative assessments verified the improvements in 38 (81%). Improvements were highly significant in walking, memory, and reaction time tests (p < 0.001). Most of the patients improved by surgery (84%) were selected by a positive lumbar infusion test, and only 42% by a positive tap test. Positive predictive values were 80% for lumbar infusion test and 94% for tap test. The false negative predictions in the operated group were much higher (58%) with the tap test than with the lumbar infusion test (16%). Conclusions: Both the lumbar infusion test and the tap test can predict a positive outcome of shunt operations in unselected patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. The two tests are complementary and should be used together for optimal patient selection.