Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016 Mar;54(3):377-88. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0420.
Geriatric reference intervals (RIs) are not commonly available and are rarely used. It is difficult to select a reference population from a cohort with a high degree of morbidity. Also important are the statistical approaches used to determine health-associated reference values. It is the aim of this study to examine the statistical methods used in the calculation of geriatric RIs.
A search was conducted on EMBASE and Medline for articles between January 1989 and January 2014. Studies were selected if they: 1) were English primary articles; 2) performed a clinical chemistry test on a blood fraction; 3) had a population sub-group consisting of individuals ≥65 years of age; and 4) calculated a RI for the subgroup ≥65 years of age.
There were 64 articles identified, of which 78.1% described the RI calculation method used. RI calculation was performed by non-parametric (21.9%), parametric (42.2%), robust (3.1%), or other (17.2%) methods. Outlier detection (SD, Grubb's test, Tukey's fence, Dixon) was infrequently used and although most studies performed partitioning, only 57.8% tested the statistical significance of the partitions. Few studies (17.2%) reported confidence intervals for the RI estimates. Overall, only 14.1% of studies provided RI estimates which followed the CLSI guideline EP28-A3c.
Statistical methods for RI calculation and partitioning varied considerably between studies and many failed to provide adequate descriptions of these methods. Challenges in analyses arose from insufficient sample sizes and heterogeneity in the elderly population. Geriatric RIs, although present in the literature, may not be properly calculated and should be carefully considered before applying them for clinical care.
老年参考区间(RIs)并不常见,也很少使用。从发病率较高的队列中选择参考人群是困难的。同样重要的是用于确定与健康相关的参考值的统计方法。本研究旨在检查计算老年 RIs 时使用的统计方法。
在 EMBASE 和 Medline 上进行了 1989 年 1 月至 2014 年 1 月期间的文章搜索。如果符合以下标准,则选择研究:1)是英语原始文章;2)对血液部分进行临床化学测试;3)有一个由年龄≥65 岁的个体组成的人群亚组;4)计算≥65 岁亚组的 RI。
共确定了 64 篇文章,其中 78.1%描述了使用的 RI 计算方法。RI 计算通过非参数(21.9%)、参数(42.2%)、稳健(3.1%)或其他(17.2%)方法进行。很少使用异常值检测(SD、Grubb 检验、Tukey 围栏、Dixon),尽管大多数研究进行了分区,但只有 57.8%测试了分区的统计显著性。很少有研究(17.2%)报告 RI 估计的置信区间。总体而言,只有 14.1%的研究提供了遵循 CLSI 指南 EP28-A3c 的 RI 估计值。
RI 计算和分区的统计方法在研究之间差异很大,许多研究未能充分描述这些方法。分析中的挑战源于样本量不足和老年人群的异质性。老年 RIs 虽然存在于文献中,但可能没有得到正确计算,在将其应用于临床护理之前应仔细考虑。