Henny J, Petitclerc C, Fuentes-Arderiu X, Petersen P H, Queraltó J M, Schiele F, Siest G
Centre de Médecine Prventive, Université Henri Poincaré-Nancy I, INSERM U525, Vandoeuvre-Lès-Nancy, France.
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000 Jul;38(7):589-95. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2000.085.
The reference values concept has been adopted by health care professionals, including clinical chemists, laboratory scientists, and clinicians and simultaneously by all the official organizations in charge of the establishment of legislation. But the estimation of reference limits, and the evaluation of biological variability need to be improved at the level of the procedures, which are currently too long and too expensive and not feasible easily for all laboratories. The procedures for obtaining reference values, if we follow the original documents, are complex, and that is the main reason that clinical chemists or diagnostic kit manufacturers have not used them systematically. There is clearly a need that scientific societies and international organizations propose practical recommendations: 1) Recommendations to describe methods linked to systematic error. * How to transfer reference limits from one laboratory to another laboratory using different methods? * Should we determine reference limits for each method? * How can we differentiate bias due to the populations from these due to the method? Clear collaborations with manufacturers involved in kits and diagnostic systems are needed. 2) Practical recommendations linked to the reference population. * How to select a homogeneous population? (Careful recommendations on the choice between healthy individuals, blood donors and individuals hospitalised for other diseases should be given.) * How to estimate ethnic differences? * How to define the exclusion and inclusion criteria according to quantity? * How to deal with the question of reference limits for unstable periods, aging or old people particularly, when the difference between aging and disease is very difficult to define? 3) Practical recommendations on the statistical methods to be used. * How to make a good choice of the interquartile interval? Should we use and present only the centiles 2.5 or 97.5, or on the contrary should we give other centiles in addition, for example 5, 10, 75, 80, 85, 90? 4) Practical recommendations linked to the use of the concept of the reference values. * How to make this concept more concrete and to have official definitions which are better understandable and not only abstract? * How to demonstrate the value of using simultaneously reference limits and decision limits, and what does each of these limits bring to results interpretation? * How to improve the presentation of the results? How to give more information on biological variability in the laboratory data, taking into account the scientific validity of their determination? Should we use new information techniques and new communication systems for reaching these objectives? The responses to all these questions could only be provided if there is a concerted effort at the international level. Practical recommendations should be given, which would be very useful for a better understanding and use of reference values by laboratory scientists and clinicians.
参考值的概念已被医疗保健专业人员所采用,包括临床化学家、实验室科学家和临床医生,同时也被负责制定法规的所有官方组织所采用。但是,参考限的估计以及生物变异性的评估在程序层面上需要改进,目前这些程序耗时过长、成本过高,而且并非所有实验室都能轻易实施。如果按照原始文件,获取参考值的程序很复杂,这就是临床化学家或诊断试剂盒制造商没有系统使用这些程序的主要原因。显然,科学协会和国际组织需要提出切实可行的建议:1)关于描述与系统误差相关方法的建议。*如何使用不同方法将参考限从一个实验室转移到另一个实验室?*我们是否应该为每种方法确定参考限?*我们如何区分因人群导致的偏差和因方法导致的偏差?需要与试剂盒和诊断系统制造商进行明确的合作。2)与参考人群相关的实用建议。*如何选择同质人群?(应就健康个体、献血者和因其他疾病住院的个体之间的选择给出谨慎建议。)*如何估计种族差异?*如何根据数量定义排除和纳入标准?*如何处理不稳定时期、尤其是衰老或老年人的参考限问题,当衰老与疾病之间的差异很难界定时?3)关于所使用统计方法的实用建议。*如何很好地选择四分位间距?我们应该只使用并呈现百分位数2.5或97.5,还是相反,我们应该另外给出其他百分位数,例如5、10、75、80、85、90?4)与参考值概念使用相关的实用建议。*如何使这个概念更具体,并拥有更易于理解且不仅仅是抽象的官方定义?*如何证明同时使用参考限和决策限的价值,以及这些限中的每一个对结果解释有何作用?*如何改进结果的呈现方式?如何在实验室数据中提供更多关于生物变异性的信息,同时考虑其测定的科学有效性?我们是否应该使用新的信息技术和新的通信系统来实现这些目标?只有在国际层面上共同努力,才能对所有这些问题给出答案。应该给出实用的建议,这对于实验室科学家和临床医生更好地理解和使用参考值将非常有用。