Abstract
Background: Population-based reference intervals have very limited value for the interpretation of laboratory results when analytes display high biological individuality. In these cases, the longitudinal evaluation of individual results using the reference change value (RCV) is the recommended approach. However, the traditional model for RCV calculation requires a Gaussian frequency distribution of data and risks to overestimate the parameter if a correlation between within-subject serial measurements is present.
Methods: We propose and validate an alternative non-parametric statistical model for interpretation of differences in serial results from an individual, overcoming data distribution and correlation issues.
Results: After describing the traditional and newly proposed statistical models, we compared them with each other using a simulation on three specific analytes displaying different concentration distributions in biological setting. We demonstrated that when analyte concentrations followed a Gaussian frequency distribution, as in the case of glycated hemoglobin, both methods can be used equally. On the contrary, if analyte concentrations present a bimodal (e.g., chromogranin A) or skewed (e.g., C-reactive protein) distribution, the information obtained by two statistical methods is different.
Conclusions: The proposed statistical approach may be more appropriate in assessing difference between serial measurements when individual data are not normally distributed.
Acknowledgments
The skilful technical assistance of Fatima Calderaro (Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milano, Italy) is gratefully acknowledged.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Financial support: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Ceriotti F, Hinzmann R, Panteghini M. Reference intervals: the way forward. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46:8–17.10.1258/acb.2008.008170Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Harris EK. Effects of intra- and inter-individual variation on the appropriate use of normal range. Clin Chem 1974;20:1535–42.10.1093/clinchem/20.12.1535Search in Google Scholar
3. Fraser CG, Harris EK. Generation and application of data on biological variation in clinical chemistry. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 1989;27:409–37.10.3109/10408368909106595Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Fraser CG. Making better use of differences in serial laboratory results. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:1–3.10.1258/acb.2011.011203Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Fraser CG. Reference change values. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:807–12.10.1515/cclm.2011.733Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Fraser CG. Biological variaton: from principles to practice. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
7. Harris EK, Yasaka T. On the calculation of a “reference change” for comparing two consecutive measurements. Clin Chem 1983;29:25–30.10.1093/clinchem/29.1.25Search in Google Scholar
8. Ferraro S, Panteghini M. Is serum human epididymis protein 4 ready for prime time? Ann Clin Biochem 2014;51:128–36.10.1177/0004563213500657Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Fraser CG, Stevenson HP, Kennedy IM. Biological variation data are necessary prerequisites for objective autoverification of clinical laboratory data. Accred Qual Assur 2002;7:455–60.10.1007/s00769-002-0526-3Search in Google Scholar
10. Franzini C. Need for correct estimates of biological variation: the example of C-reactive protein. Clin Chem Lab Med 1998;36: 131–2.10.1515/CCLM.1998.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Fokkema MR, Herrmann Z, Muskiet FA, Moecks J. Reference change values for brain natriuretic peptides revisited. Clin Chem 2006;52:1602–3.10.1373/clinchem.2006.069369Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Braga F, Ferraro S, Lanzoni M, Szoke D, Panteghini M. Estimate of intraindividual variability of C-reactive protein: a challenging issue. Clin Chim Acta 2013;419:85–6.10.1016/j.cca.2013.02.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Braga F, Panteghini M. Biologic variability of C-reactive protein: is the available information reliable? Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:1179–83.10.1016/j.cca.2012.04.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Sullivan LM. Repeated measures. Circulation 2008;117:1238–43.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.654350Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Peters JL, Mengersen KL. Meta-analysis of repeated measures study designs. J Eval Clin Pract 2008;14:941–50.10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01010.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Røraas T, Petersen H, Sandberg S. Confidence intervals and power calculations for within-person biological variation: effect of analytical imprecision, number of replicates, number of samples and number of individual. Clin Chem 2012;58:1306–13.10.1373/clinchem.2012.187781Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Fraser CG. Reference change values: the way forward in monitoring. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46:264–5.10.1258/acb.2009.009006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Garner AE, Lewington AJ, Barth JH. Detection of patients with acute kidney injury by the clinical laboratory using rises in serum creatinine: comparison of proposed definitions and a laboratory delta check. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:59–62.10.1258/acb.2011.011125Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Bland JM. An introduction to medical statistics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University, 2000.Search in Google Scholar
20. Braga F, Dolci A, Montagnana M, Pagani F, Paleari R, Guidi GC, et al. Revaluation of biological variation of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) using an accurately designed protocol and an assay traceable to the IFCC reference system. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1412–6.10.1016/j.cca.2011.04.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Braga F, Ferraro S, Mozzi R, Dolci A, Panteghini M. Biological variation of neuroendocrine tumor markers chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. Clin Biochem 2013;46:148–51.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.09.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Ferraro S, Mozzi R, Michelazzo C, Basco D, Panteghini M. Reference intervals for the new Brahms chromogranin A (CGA) assay. Biochim Clin 2013;37:S169.Search in Google Scholar
23. Ricós C, Cava F, García-Lario JV, Hernández A, Iglesias N, Jiménez CV, et al. The reference change value: a proposal to interpret laboratory reports in serial testing based on biological variation. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2004;64:175–84.10.1080/00365510410004885Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Cooper G, DeJonge N, Ehrmeyer S, Yundt-Pacheco J, Jansen R, Ricós C, et al. Collective opinion paper on findings of the 2010 convocation of experts on laboratory quality. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:793–802.10.1515/CCLM.2011.149Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Wu AH, Lu QA, Todd J, Moecks J, Wians F. Short- and long-term biological variation in cardiac troponin I measured with a high-sensitivity assay: implications for clinical practice. Clin Chem 2009;55:52–8.10.1373/clinchem.2008.107391Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. deGoma EM, French B, Dunbar RL, Allison MA, Mohler III ER, Budoff MJ. Intraindividual variability of C-reactive protein: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 2012;224:274–9.10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.07.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
27. Glynn RD, MacFadyen JG, Ridker PM. Tracking of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein after an initially elevated concentration: the JUPITER Study. Clin Chem 2009;55:305–12.10.1373/clinchem.2008.120642Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Campbell B, Badrick T, Flatman R, Kanowsli D. Limited clinical utility of high-sensitivity plasma C-reactive protein assays. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39:85–8.10.1258/0004563021901757Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2015 by De Gruyter
