Search

Abstract: The global multicenter study on reference values coordinated by the Committee on Reference Intervals and Decision Limits (C-RIDL) of the IFCC was launched in December 2011, targeting 45 commonly tested analytes with the following objectives: 1) to derive reference intervals (RIs) country by country using a common protocol, and 2) to explore regionality/ethnicity of reference values by aligning test results among the countries. To achieve these objectives, it is crucial to harmonize 1) the protocol for recruitment and sampling, 2) statistical procedures for deriving the RI, and 3) test results through measurement of a panel of sera in common. For harmonized recruitment, very lenient inclusion/exclusion criteria were adopted in view of differences in interpretation of what constitutes healthiness by different cultures and investigators. This policy may require secondary exclusion of individuals according to the standard of each country at the time of deriving RIs. An iterative optimization procedure, called the latent abnormal values exclusion (LAVE) method, can be applied to automate the process of refining the choice of reference individuals. For global comparison of reference values, test results must be harmonized, based on the among-country, pair-wise linear relationships of test values for the panel. Traceability of reference values can be ensured based on values assigned indirectly to the panel through collaborative measurement of certified reference materials. The validity of the adopted strategies is discussed in this article, based on interim results obtained to date from five countries. Special considerations are made for dissociation of RIs by parametric and nonparametric methods and between-country difference in the effect of body mass index on reference values. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In a planned International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) worldwide study on reference intervals (RIs), a common panel of serum samples is to be measured by laboratories from different countries, and test results are to be compared through conversion using linear regression analysis. This report presents a validation study that was conducted in collaboration with four laboratories. Methods: A panel composed of 80 sera was prepared from healthy individuals, and 45 commonly tested analytes (general chemistry, tumor markers, and hormones) were measured on two occasions 1 week apart in each laboratory. Reduced major-axis linear regression was used to convert reference limits ( LL and UL). Precision was expressed as a ratio of the standard error of converted LL or UL to the standard deviation (SD) comprising RI (approx. 1/4 of the RI width corresponding to between-individual SD). The allowable and optimal levels of error for the SD ratio (SDR) were set as ≤0.250 and ≤0.125, respectively, in analogy to the common method of setting limits for analytical bias based on between-individual SD. Results: The values for the calculated SDRs depended upon the distribution patterns of test results: skewness toward higher values makes SDRLL lower and SDRUL higher. However, the CV of the regression line slope, CV( b), is less affected by skewness. The average of SDRLL and SDRUL (aveSDR) correlates closely with CV( b) (r=0.995). The aveSDRs of ≤0.25 and ≤0.125 corresponds approximately to CV( b) values of ≤11% and ≤5.5%, respectively. For all results (i.e., n=80), conversion was allowable (optimal) in 98% (89%) of the analytes, as judged by CV( b). Resampling studies using random subsets of data with a data size (n) of 70 to 20 revealed that SDRs and CV( b) gradually increase with reduction of n, especially with n ≤30. Conclusions: CV( b) is a robust estimator for judging the convertibility of reference values among laboratories, even with a skewed distribution. Assuming 40 sera to be a practical size for the panel, reference values of 89% (80%) of analytes examined were made comparable by regression analysis with the allowable (optimal) level of precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reference intervals (RIs) given in laboratory reports have an important role in aiding clinicians in interpreting test results in reference to values of healthy populations. In this report, we present a proposed protocol and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for common use in conducting multicenter RI studies on a national or international scale. The protocols and consensus on their contents were refined through discussions in recent C-RIDL meetings. The protocol describes in detail (1) the scheme and organization of the study, (2) the target population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, ethnicity, and sample size, (3) health status questionnaire, (4) target analytes, (5) blood collection, (6) sample processing and storage, (7) assays, (8) cross-check testing, (9) ethics, (10) data analyses, and (11) reporting of results. In addition, the protocol proposes the common measurement of a panel of sera when no standard materials exist for harmonization of test results. It also describes the requirements of the central laboratory, including the method of cross-check testing between the central laboratory of each country and local laboratories. This protocol and the SOPs remain largely exploratory and may require a reevaluation from the practical point of view after their implementation in the ongoing worldwide study. The paper is mainly intended to be a basis for discussion in the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]