Abstract
Background: Little attention has been paid to the maximum number of specimens for reference interval calculation, i.e., the number of specimens beyond which there is no further benefit in reference interval calculation. We present a model for the estimation of the maximum number of specimens for reference interval studies based on setting the 90% confidence interval of the reference limits to be equal to the analyte reporting interval.
Methods: Equations describing the bounds on the upper and lower 90% confidence intervals for logarithmically transformed and untransformed data were derived and applied to determine the maximum number of specimens required to calculate a reference interval for 12 common chemistry and hematology analytes.
Results: Maximum sample sizes ranged from 126 to 18,171 and depended on the standard deviation of the population, any transformation involved and on the chosen reporting interval.
Conclusions: This paper demonstrates the importance of the influence of reporting interval on reference intervals. Using this technique can reduce the cost of determining a reference interval by identifying the maximum number of specimens required.
Appendix
We recall the hyperbolic sinh function sinh(x)=0.5[exp(x) –exp(−x)] we can simplify Eq. (14) as follows:
References
1. Horn PS, Pesce AJ. Reference intervals: an update. Clin Chim Acta 2003;334:5–23.10.1016/S0009-8981(03)00133-5Search in Google Scholar
2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Defining, establishing and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved guideline, 3rd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
3. Burtis CA, Ashwood ER, editors. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
4. Pavlov IY, Wilson AR, Delgado JC. Reference interval computation: which method (not) to choose? Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:1107–14.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000304578200014&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
5. Westgard QC. Desirable biological variation database specifications. Available from http://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm. Accessed on July 16, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
6. Fraser CG. Biological variation: from principles to practice. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
7. Jones G, Barker A. Standardisation of reference intervals: an Australasian view. Clin Biochem Rev 2007;28:169–73.Search in Google Scholar
8. Rustad P, Felding P, Lahti A. Proposal for guidelines to establish common biological reference intervals in large geographical areas for biochemical quantities measured frequently in serum and plasma. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:783–91.10.1515/CCLM.2004.131Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Hawkins RC, Badrick T, Hickman PE. Over-reporting significant figures – a significant problem? Clin Chim Acta 2007;375: 158–61.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000242519600025&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1016/j.cca.2006.06.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Hawkins RC. SI or non-SI units – which better match day-to-day imprecision? Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1336–8.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000259929300026&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
