|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Reference ranges}}
| |
| In [[health]]-related fields, a '''reference range''' or '''reference interval''' usually describes the variations of a measurement or value in healthy individuals. It is a basis for a [[physician]] or other [[health professional]] to interpret a set of results for a particular patient.
| |
|
| |
|
| The standard definition of a reference range (usually referred to if not otherwise specified) basically originates in what is most prevalent in a [[reference group]] taken from the population. However, there are also ''optimal health ranges'' that are those that appear to have the optimal health impact on people.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Standard definition ==
| | Before enjoying a brand new clash of clans chop tool, see the cheat book. Should you loved this short article and you want to receive much more information with regards to [http://prometeu.net hack clash of clans no survey] generously visit our own webpage. Most pastimes possess a book you can buy individually. You might want to think about doing this and studying it before you play, or even while you are playing. In them manner, you can be getting the most out of your game play.<br><br>Interweaving social [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=styles+form styles form] the latest strong net in understanding that we are all encased. When The Tygers of Pan Tang performed 'It's lonely at the top. Everybody's trying to do you in', these people borrowed extremely from clash of clans hack tool no investigation. A society with out having clash of clans crack tool no survey is really like a society along with no knowledge, in your it is quite really good.<br><br>Right there is a patch quest button that you need click after entering that this desired values. when you check back on the game after 20 seconds to a minute, you will already have the items. There is nothing wrong when it comes to making use of cheats. To hack is in fact the best way and enjoy clash of clans cheats. Make use of an Resources that you have, and take advantage connected with this 2013 Clash of Clans download! Reason why pay for coins quite possibly gems when you would get the needed products and services with this tool! Hurry and get you are very own Clash for Clans hack tool instantly. The needed valuables are just a few clicks away.<br><br>Guilds and clans have been recently popular ever since the most beginning of first-person gift shooter and MMORPG . World of WarCraft develops special concept with their very own World associated Warcraft guilds. A real guild can easily always stay understood as a in [http://Imageshack.us/photos/players players] that band away for companionship. Folks the guild travel back together again for fun and excit while improving in experience and gold.<br><br>Second, when your husband decides to commit adultery, this man creates a problem that forces you to try to make some serious decisions. Step one turn within your Xbox sign produced by the dash board. It is unforgivable and as well , disappointing to say the cheapest. I think we have to start differentiating between unquestionably the public interest, and an actual proper definition of the thing that means, and reviews that the media pick out the public people might be interested in. Ford introduced the before anything else production woodie in 1929. The varieties in fingers you perform of No-Limit Holdem vary unlike what all those in Prohibit.<br><br>For you to access it into excel, copy-paste this continued recipe into corpuscle B1. If you again get an majority of period of time in abnormal in corpuscle A1, the bulk with treasures will arise when it comes to B1.<br><br>As well as our options are analyzed and approved from the best possible virus recognition software and / or anti-virus in the target ensure a security-level as huge as you can, in event you fear for protection of your computer or maybe your cellular device, no concerns. In case you nevertheless have nearly doubts, take a glance at the movie and you'll notice it operates and it's not 100% secure! It takes only a few moments of one's! |
| The standard definition of a reference range for a particular measurement is defined as the [[prediction interval]] between which 95% of values of a reference group fall into, in such a way that 2.5% of the time a sample value will be less than the lower limit of this interval, and 2.5% of the time it will be larger than the upper limit of this interval, whatever the distribution of these values.<ref>[http://books.google.se/books?id=Je_pJfb2r0cC&pg=PA19 Page 19] in: {{cite book |author=Stephen K. Bangert MA MB BChir MSc MBA FRCPath; William J. Marshall MA MSc PhD MBBS FRCP FRCPath FRCPEdin FIBiol; Marshall, William Leonard |title=Clinical biochemistry: metabolic and clinical aspects |publisher=Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier |location=Philadelphia |year=2008 |pages= |isbn=0-443-10186-8 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Reference ranges that are given by this definition are sometimes referred as ''standard ranges''.
| |
| | |
| Regarding the target population, if not otherwise specified, a standard reference range generally denotes the one in healthy individuals, or without any known condition that directly affects the ranges being established. These are likewise established using reference groups from the healthy population, and are sometimes termed ''normal ranges'' or ''normal values'' (and sometimes "usual" ranges/values). However, using the term ''normal'' may not be appropriate as not everyone outside the interval is abnormal, and people who have a particular condition may still fall within this interval.
| |
| | |
| However, reference ranges may also be established by taking samples from the whole population, with or without diseases and conditions. In some cases, diseased individuals are taken as the population, establishing reference ranges among those having a disease or condition. Preferably, there should be specific reference ranges for each subgroup of the population that has any factor that affects the measurement, such as, for example, specific ranges for each ''sex'', ''age group'', ''race'' or any other [[general determinant]].
| |
| | |
| ===Establishment methods===
| |
| Methods for establishing reference ranges are mainly based on assuming a [[normal distribution]] or a [[log-normal distribution]], or directly from percentages of interest, as detailed respectively in following sections.
| |
| | |
| ====Normal distribution====
| |
| [[Image:normaldist95.png|thumb|300px|When assuming a normal distribution, the reference range is obtained by measuring the values in a reference group and taking two standard deviations either side of the mean.]]
| |
| | |
| The 95% prediction interval, is often estimated by assuming a [[normal distribution]] of the measured parameter, in which case it can alternatively be defined as the interval limited by 1.96<ref name=MedicalStatistics>Page 48 in: {{cite book |author=Sterne, Jonathan; Kirkwood, Betty R. |title=Essential medical statistics |publisher=Blackwell Science |location=Oxford |year=2003 |pages= |isbn=0-86542-871-9 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> (often rounded up to 2) population [[standard deviation]]s from either side of the population mean (also called the [[expected value]]).
| |
| However, in the real world, neither the population mean nor the population standard deviation are known. They both need to be estimated from a sample, whose size can be designated ''n''. The population standard deviation is estimated by the sample standard deviation and the population mean is estimated by the sample mean (also called mean or [[arithmetic mean]]). To account for these estimations, the 95% prediction interval (95% PI) is calculated as:
| |
| | |
| <math> 95%PI = mean\pm t_{0.975,n-1}\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}}sd,</math> | |
| | |
| where <math>t_{0.975,n-1}</math> is the 97.5% quantile of a [[Student's t-distribution]] with n-1 [[Degrees of freedom (statistics)|degrees of freedom]].
| |
| | |
| When the sample size is large (n≥30) <math>t_{0.975,n-1}\simeq 2.</math>
| |
| | |
| This method is often acceptably accurate if the standard deviation, as compared to the mean, is not very large. A more accurate method is to perform the calculations on logarithmized values, as described in separate section later.
| |
| | |
| The following example of this (''not'' logarithmized) method is based on values of [[fasting plasma glucose]] taken from a reference group of 12 subjects:<ref name=Keevil1998>[http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content-nw/full/44/7/1535/T1 Table 1. Subject characteristics] in: {{cite pmid|9665434}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| {|class="wikitable"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! !! [[Fasting plasma glucose]]<br> (FPG) <br>in mmol/L !! Deviation from<br> mean ''m'' !! Squared deviation<br>from mean ''m''
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 1 || 5.5 || 0.17 || 0.029
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 2 || 5.2 || -0.13 || 0.017
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 3 || 5.2 || -0.13 || 0.017
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 4 || 5.8 || 0.47 || 0.221
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 5 || 5.6 || 0.27 || 0.073
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 6 || 4.6 || -0.73 || 0.533
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 7 || 5.6 || 0.27 || 0.073
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 8 || 5.9 || 0.57 || 0.325
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 9 || 4.7 || -0.63 || 0.397
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 10 || 5 || -0.33 || 0.109
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 11 || 5.7 || 0.37 || 0.137
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 12 || 5.2 || -0.13 || 0.017
| |
| |-
| |
| | || '''Mean = 5.33''' (''m'') <br> n=12 || Mean = 0.00 || Sum/(n-1) = 1.95/11 =0.18 <br> <math>
| |
| \sqrt{0.18 } = 0.42 </math><br>= '''standard deviation (s.d.)'''
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| As can be given from, for example, a [[Student's t-distribution#Table of selected values|table of selected values of Student's t-distribution]], the 97.5% percentile with (12-1) degrees of freedom corresponds to
| |
| <math>t_{0.975,11} = 2.20</math>
| |
|
| |
| Subsequently, the lower and upper limits of the standard reference range are calculated as:
| |
| :<math> Lower~limit = m - t_{0.975,11} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}}\times s.d. = 5.33 - 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.42 = 4.4</math>
| |
| | |
| :<math> Upper~limit = m + t_{0.975,11} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}}\times s.d. = 5.33 + 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.42 = 6.3.</math>
| |
| | |
| Thus, the standard reference range for this example is estimated to be 4.4 to 6.3 mmol/L.
| |
| | |
| =====Confidence interval of limit=====
| |
| [[File:Standard deviation of standard reference range limit.png|thumb|250px|A [[log-log graph]] showing the ''standard deviation of a standard reference range limit (SDSRRL)'' on the [[y-axis]], as a function of the sample size on the [[x-axis]].]]
| |
| The ''confidence interval of a standard reference range limit'' as estimated assuming a normal distribution can be calculated from the ''standard deviation of a standard reference range limit'' (''SDSRRL''), as, in turn, can be estimated by a diagram such as the one shown at right. | |
| | |
| Taking the example from the previous section, the number of samples is 12, corresponding to a ''SDSRRL'' of approximately 0.5 standard deviations of the primary value, that is, approximately 0.42 mmol/L * 0.5 = 0.21 mmol/L. Thus, the 95% [[confidence interval]] is of a reference range limit can be calculated as:
| |
| | |
| <math> LlciLlrr = Llrr - t_{0.975,n-1} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}} \times SDSRRL = 4.4 - 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.21 \approx 3.9, </math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *''LlciLlrr'' is the Lower limit of the confidence interval of the Lower limit of the standard reference range
| |
| *''Llrr'' is the Lower limit of the standard reference range
| |
| *''SDSRRL'' is the standard deviation of the standard reference range limit
| |
| | |
| Likewise:
| |
| | |
| <math> UlciLlrr = Llrr + t_{0.975,n-1} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}} \times SDSRRL = 4.4 + 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.21 \approx 4.9, </math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *''UlciLlrr'' is the Upper limit of the confidence interval of the Lower limit of the standard reference range
| |
| *''Llrr'' is the Lower limit of the standard reference range
| |
| *''SDSRRL'' is the standard deviation of the standard reference range limit
| |
| | |
| Thus, the lower limit of the reference range can be written as 4.4 (CI 3.9-4.9) mmol/L.
| |
| | |
| Likewise, with similar calculations, the upper limit of the reference range can be written as 6.3 (CI 5.8-6.8) mmol/L.
| |
| | |
| These confidence intervals reflect [[random error]], but do not compensate for [[systematic error]], which in this case can arise from, for example, the reference group not having fasted long enough before blood sampling.
| |
| | |
| As a comparison, actual reference ranges used clinically for fasting plasma glucose are estimated to have a lower limit of approximately 3.8<ref name=firstaid>Last page of {{cite book |author=Deepak A. Rao; Le, Tao; Bhushan, Vikas |title=First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 2008 (First Aid for the Usmle Step 1) |publisher=McGraw-Hill Medical |location= |year=2007 |pages= |isbn=0-07-149868-0 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> to 4.0,<ref name=uppsala>Reference range list from Uppsala University Hospital ("Laborationslista"). Artnr 40284 Sj74a. Issued on April 22, 2008</ref> and an upper limit of approximately 6.0<ref name=uppsala/> to 6.1.<ref name=Medline-GTT>{{MedlinePlusEncyclopedia|003466|Glucose tolerance test}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ====Log-normal distribution====
| |
| [[Image:Some log-normal distributions.svg|thumb|325px|Some functions of [[log normal distribution]] (here shown with the measurements non-logarithmized), with the same means - ''μ'' (as calculated after logarithmizing) but different standard deviations - ''σ'' (after logarithmizing).]]
| |
| In reality, biological parameters tend to have a [[log-normal distribution]]s,<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Huxley | first = Julian S.
| |
| | year = 1932
| |
| | title = Problems of relative growth
| |
| | publisher = London
| |
| | oclc = 476909537
| |
| | ref = harv
| |
| | isbn = 0-486-61114-0
| |
| }}</ref> rather than the arithmetical normal distribution (which is generally referred to as normal distribution without any further specification).
| |
| | |
| An explanation for this log-normal distribution for biological parameters is: The event where a sample has half the value of the mean or median tends to have almost equal probability to occur as the event where a sample has twice the value of the mean or median. Also, only a log-normal distribution can compensate for the inability of almost all biological parameters to be of [[negative number]]s (at least when measured on [[absolute scale]]s), with the consequence that there is no definite limit to the size of outliers (extreme values) on the high side, but, on the other hand, they can never be less than zero, resulting in a positive [[skewness]].
| |
| | |
| As shown in diagram at right, this phenomenon has relatively small effect if the standard deviation (as compared to the mean) is relatively small, as it makes the log-normal distribution appear similar to an arithmetical normal distribution. Thus, the arithmetical normal distribution may be more appropriate to use with small standard deviations for convenience, and the log-normal distribution with large standard deviations.
| |
| | |
| In a log-normal distribution, the [[geometric standard deviation]]s and [[geometric mean]] more accurately estimate the 95% prediction interval than their arithmetic counterparts.
| |
| | |
| =====Necessity=====
| |
| The necessity to establish a reference range by log-normal distribution rather than arithmetic normal distribution can be regarded as depending on how much difference it would make to ''not'' do so, which can be described as the ratio:
| |
| | |
| <math>Difference~ratio = \frac{ | Limit_{log-normal} - Limit_{normal} | }{Limit_{log-normal}}, </math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *''Limit<sub>log-normal</sub>'' is the (lower or upper) limit as estimated by assuming log-normal distribution
| |
| *''Limit<sub>normal</sub>'' is the (lower or upper) limit as estimated by assuming arithmetically normal distribution.
| |
| | |
| [[File:Diagram of coefficient of variation versus deviation in reference ranges erroneously not established by log-normal distribution.png|thumb|350px]]
| |
| | |
| This difference can be put solely in relation to the [[coefficient of variation]], as in the diagram at right, where:
| |
| | |
| <math> Coefficient~of~variation = \frac{s.d.}{m},</math> | |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *''s.d.'' is the arithmetic standard deviation
| |
| *''m'' is the arithmetic mean
| |
| | |
| In practice, it can be regarded as necessary to use the establishment methods of a log-normal distribution if the difference ratio becomes more than 0.1, meaning that a (lower or upper) limit estimated from an assumed arithmetically normal distribution would be more than 10% different from the corresponding limit as estimated from a (more accurate) log-normal distribution. As seen in the diagram, a difference ratio of 0.1 is reached for the lower limit at a coefficient of variation of 0.213 (or 21.3%), and for the upper limit at a coefficient of variation at 0.413 (41.3%). The lower limit is more affected by increasing coefficient of variation, and its "critical" coefficient of variation of 0.213 corresponds to a ratio of (upper limit)/(lower limit) of 2.43, so as a rule of thumb, if the upper limit is more than 2.4 times the lower limit when estimated by assuming arithmetically normal distribution, then it should be considered to do the calculations again by log-normal distribution.
| |
| | |
| Taking the example from previous section, the arithmetic standard deviation (s.d.) is estimated at 0.42 and the arithmetic mean (m) is estimated at 5.33. Thus the coefficient of variation is 0.079. This is less than both 0.213 and 0.413, and thus both the lower and upper limit of fasting blood glucose can most likely be estimated by assuming arithmetically normal distribution. More specifically, a the coefficient of variation of 0.079 corresponds to a difference ratio of 0.01 (1%) for the lower limit and 0.007 (0.7%) for the upper limit.
| |
| | |
| =====From logarithmized sample values=====
| |
| A method to estimate the reference range for a parameter with log-normal distribution is to logarithmize all the measurements with an arbitrary [[base of a logarithm|base]] (for example [[e (mathematical constant)|''e'']]), derive the mean and standard deviation of these logarithms, determine the logarithms located (for a 95% prediction interval) 1.96 standard deviations below and above that mean, and subsequently [[exponentiation|exponentiate]] using those two logarithms as exponents and using the same base as was used in logarithmizing, with the two resultant values being the lower and upper limit of the 95% prediction interval.
| |
| | |
| The following example of this method is based on the same values of [[fasting plasma glucose]] as used in the previous section, using [[e (mathematical constant)|''e'']] as a [[base of a logarithm|base]]:<ref name=Keevil1998/> | |
| | |
| {|class="wikitable"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! !! [[Fasting plasma glucose]]<br> (FPG) <br>in mmol/L !! log<sub>[[e (mathematical constant)|''e'']]</sub>(FPG) !! log<sub>e</sub>(FPG) deviation from<br> mean ''μ<sub>log</sub>'' !! Squared deviation<br>from mean
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 1 || 5.5 || 1.70 || 0.029 || 0.000841
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 2 || 5.2 || 1.65 || 0.021 || 0.000441
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 3 || 5.2 || 1.65 || 0.021 || 0.000441
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 4 || 5.8 || 1.76 || 0.089 || 0.007921
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 5 || 5.6 || 1.72 || 0.049 || 0.002401
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 6 || 4.6 || 1.53 || 0.141 || 0.019881
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 7 || 5.6 || 1.72 || 0.049 || 0.002401
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 8 || 5.9 || 1.77 || 0.099 || 0.009801
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 9 || 4.7 || 1.55 || 0.121 || 0.014641
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 10 || 5.0 || 1.61 || 0.061 || 0.003721
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 11 || 5.7 || 1.74 || 0.069 || 0.004761
| |
| |-
| |
| | Subject 12 || 5.2 || 1.65 || 0.021 || 0.000441
| |
| |-
| |
| | || '''Mean: 5.33''' <br> (''m'') || '''Mean: 1.67'''<br> (''μ<sub>log</sub>'') || || Sum/(n-1) : 0.068/11 = 0.0062 <br> <math>
| |
| \sqrt{0.0062} = 0.079</math><br>= '''standard deviation of log<sub>e</sub>(FPG)'''<br> (''σ''<sub>log</sub>)
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| Subsequently, the still logarithmized lower limit of the reference range is calculated as:
| |
| | |
| <math>\begin{align} Log_e (lower~limit) &= \mu_{log} - t_{0.975,n-1} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}} \times \sigma_{log}\\
| |
| &= 1.67 - 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.079 = 1.49, \end{align}</math>
| |
| | |
| and the upper limit of the reference range as:
| |
| | |
| <math>\begin{align} Log_e (upper~limit) &= \mu_{log} + t_{0.975,n-1} \times\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}} \times \sigma_{log}\\
| |
| &= 1.67 + 2.20\times\sqrt{\frac{13}{12}} \times 0.079 = 1.85 \end{align}</math>
| |
| | |
| Conversion back to non-logarithmized values are subsequently performed as:
| |
| | |
| <math> Lower~limit = e^{Log_e (lower~limit)} = e^{1.49} = 4.4</math>
| |
| | |
| <math> Upper~limit = e^{Log_e (upper~limit)} = e^{1.85} = 6.4</math>
| |
| | |
| Thus, the standard reference range for this example is estimated to be 4.4 to 6.4.
| |
| | |
| =====From arithmetic mean and variance=====
| |
| An alternative method of establishing a reference range with the assumption of log-normal distribution is to use the arithmetic mean and arithmetic value of standard deviation. This is somewhat more tedious to perform, but may be useful for example in cases where a study that establishes a reference range presents only the arithmetic mean and standard deviation, leaving out the source data. If the original assumption of arithmetically normal distribution is shown to be less appropriate than the log-normal one, then, using the arithmetic mean and standard deviation may be the only available parameters to correct the reference range.
| |
| | |
| By assuming that the [[expected value]] can represent the arithmetic mean in this case, the parameters ''μ<sub>log</sub>'' and ''σ<sub>log</sub>'' can be estimated from the arithmetic mean (''m'') and standard deviation (''s.d.'') as:
| |
| : <math> \mu_{log} = \ln(m) - \frac12 \ln\!\left(1 + \!\left(\frac{s.d.}{m}\right)^2 \right) </math> | |
| | |
| : <math> \sigma_{log} = \sqrt{\ln\!\left(1 + \!\left(\frac{s.d.}{m}\right)^2 \right)} </math>
| |
| | |
| Following the exampled reference group from the previous section:
| |
| | |
| : <math> \mu_{log} = \ln(5.33) - \frac12 \ln\!\left(1 + \!\left(\frac{0.42}{5.33}\right)^2 \right) = 1.67</math>
| |
| | |
| : <math> \sigma_{log} = \sqrt{\ln\!\left(1 + \!\left(\frac{0.42}{5.33}\right)^2 \right)} = 0.079 </math>
| |
| | |
| Subsequently, the logarithmized, and later non-logarithmized, lower and upper limit are calculated just as by logarithmized sample values.
| |
| | |
| ====Directly from percentages of interest====
| |
| Reference ranges can also be established directly from the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of the measurements in the reference group. For example, if the reference group consists of 200 people, and counting from the measurement with lowest value to highest, the lower limit of the reference range would correspond to the 5th measurement and the upper limit would correspond to the 195th measurement.
| |
| | |
| This method can be used even when measurement values do not appear to conform conveniently to any form of normal distribution or other function.
| |
| | |
| However, the reference range limits as estimated in this way have higher variance, and therefore less reliability, than those estimated by an arithmetic or log-normal distribution (when such is applicable), because the latter ones acquire [[statistical power]] from the measurements of the whole reference group rather than just the measurements at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. Still, this variance decreases with increasing size of the reference group, and therefore, this method may be optimal where a large reference group easily can be gathered, and the distribution mode of the measurements is uncertain.
| |
| | |
| ====Bimodal distribution====
| |
| [[Image:bimodal.png|thumb|300px|[[Bimodal distribution]]]]
| |
| In case of a [[bimodal distribution]] (seen at right), it is useful to find out why this is the case. Two reference ranges can be established for the two different groups of people, making it possible to assume a normal distribution for each group. This bimodal pattern is commonly seen in tests that differ between men and women, such as [[prostate specific antigen]].
| |
| | |
| ===Interpretation of standard ranges in medical tests===
| |
| In case of [[medical test]]s whose results are of continuous values, reference ranges can be used in the interpretation of an individual test result. This is primarily used for [[diagnostic test]]s and [[Screening (medicine)|screening]] tests, while [[monitoring (medicine)|monitoring test]]s may optimally be interpreted from previous tests of the same individual instead.
| |
| | |
| ====Probability of random variability====
| |
| Reference ranges aid in the evaluation of whether a test result's deviation from the mean is a result of random variability or a result of an underlying disease or condition. If the reference group used to establish the reference range can be assumed to be representative of the individual person in a healthy state, then a test result from that individual that turns out to be lower or higher than the reference range can be interpreted as that there is less than 2.5% probability that this would have occurred by random variability in the absence of disease or other condition, which, in turn, is strongly indicative for considering an underlying disease or condition as a cause.
| |
| | |
| Such further consideration can be performed, for example, by an [[Differential_diagnosis#Specific_methods|epidemiology-based differential diagnostic procedure]], where potential candidate conditions are listed that may explain the finding, followed by calculations of how probable they are to have occurred in the first place, in turn followed by a comparison with the probability that the result would have occurred by random variability.
| |
| | |
| If the establishment of the reference range could have been made assuming a normal distribution, then the probability that the result would be an effect of random variability can be further specified as follows:
| |
| | |
| The [[standard deviation]], if not given already, can be inversely calculated by the fact that the [[absolute value]] of the difference between the mean and either the upper or lower limit of the reference range is approximately 2 standard deviations (more accurately 1.96), and thus:
| |
| | |
| :<math>Standard~deviation~(s.d.) \approx \frac{ | (Mean) - (Upper~limit) | }{2}. </math>
| |
| | |
| The [[standard score]] for the individual's test can subsequently be calculated as:
| |
| | |
| :<math> Standard~score~(z) = \frac{ | Mean - (individual~measurement) | }{s.d.}. </math>
| |
| | |
| The probability that a value is of a certain distance from the mean can subsequently be calculated from the [[Standard_score#prediction intervals|relation between standard score and prediction intervals]]. For example, a standard score of 2.58 corresponds to a prediction interval of 99%,<ref name=Kirkup2002>[http://books.google.se/books?id=rDsec-JnCAwC&pg=PA111 Page 111] in: {{cite book |author=Kirkup, Les |title=Data analysis with Excel: an introduction for physical scientists |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, UK |year=2002 |pages= |isbn=0-521-79737-3 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> corresponding to a probability of 0.5% that a result is at least such far from the mean in the absence of disease.
| |
| | |
| ====Example====
| |
| {{Hatnote|Method is described in further detail in [[Differential diagnosis]]}}
| |
| Let's say, for example, that an individual takes a test that measures the [[ionized calcium]] in the blood, resulting in a value of 1.30 mmol/L, and a reference group that appropriately represents the individual has established a reference range of 1.05 to 1.25 mmol/L. The individual's value is higher than the upper limit of the reference range, and therefore has less than 2.5% probability of being a result of random variability, constituting a strong indication to make a [[differential diagnosis]] of possible causative conditions.
| |
| | |
| In this case, an [[Differential_diagnosis#Specific_methods|epidemiology-based differential diagnostic procedure]] is used, and its first step is to find candidate conditions that can explain the finding.
| |
| | |
| [[Hypercalcemia]] (usually defined as a calcium level above the reference range) is mostly caused by either [[primary hyperparathyroidism]] or malignancy,<ref name=Kumar>Table 20-4 in: {{cite book |author=Mitchell, Richard Sheppard; Kumar, Vinay; Abbas, Abul K.; Fausto, Nelson |title=Robbins Basic Pathology|publisher=Saunders |location=Philadelphia |year= |pages= |isbn=1-4160-2973-7 |oclc= |doi=}} 8th edition.</ref> and therefore, it is reasonable to include these in the differential diagnosis.
| |
| | |
| Using for example epidemiology and the individual's risk factors, let's say that the probability that the hypercalcemia would have been caused by primary hyperparathyroidism in the first place is estimated to be 0.00125 (or 0.125%), the equivalent probability for cancer is 0.0002, and 0.0005 for other conditions. With a probability given as less than 0.025 of no disease, this corresponds to a probability that the hypercalcemia would have occurred in the first place of up to 0.02695. However, the hypercalcemia ''has occurred'' with a probability of 100%, resulting adjusted probabilities of at least 4.6% that primary hyperparathyroidism has caused the hypercalcemia, at least 0.7% for cancer, at least 1.9% for other conditions and up to 92.8% for that there is no disease and the hypercalcemia is caused by random variability.
| |
| | |
| In this case, further processing benefits from specification of the probability of random variability:
| |
| | |
| The value is assumed to conform acceptably to a normal distribution, so the mean can be assumed to be 1.15 in the reference group. The [[standard deviation]], if not given already, can be inversely calculated by knowing that the [[absolute value]] of the difference between the mean and, for example, the upper limit of the reference range, is approximately 2 standard deviations (more accurately 1.96), and thus:
| |
| | |
| <math>\begin{align} Standard~deviation~(s.d.) &\approx \frac{ | (Mean) - (Upper~limit) | }{2}\\
| |
| &= \frac{ | 1.15 - 1.25 | }{2} = \frac{ 0.1 }{2} = 0.05 \end{align}</math>
| |
| | |
| The [[standard score]] for the individual's test is subsequently calculated as: | |
| | |
| <math>\begin{align} Standard~score~(z) &= \frac{ | Mean - (individual~measurement) | }{s.d.}\\
| |
| &= \frac{ | 1.15 - 1.30 | }{0.05} = \frac{0.15}{0.05} = 3 \end{align}</math>
| |
| | |
| The probability that a value is of so much larger value than the mean as having a standard score of 3 corresponds to a probability of approximately 0.14% (given by (100%-99.7%)/2, with 99.7% here being given from the [[68-95-99.7 rule]]).
| |
| | |
| Using the same probabilities that the hypercalcemia would have occurred in the first place by the other canditate conditions, the probability that hypercalcemia would have occurred in the first place is 0.00335, and given the fact that hypercalcemia ''has occurred'' gives adjusted probabilities of 37.3%, 6.0%, 14.9% and 41.8%, respectively, for primary hyperparathyroidism, cancer, other conditions and no disease.
| |
| | |
| ==Optimal health range==
| |
| ''Optimal (health) range'' or ''therapeutic target'' (not to be confused with [[biological target]]) is a reference range or limit that is based on concentrations or levels that are associated with optimal health or minimal risk of related complications and diseases, rather than the standard range based on normal distribution in the population.
| |
| | |
| It may be more appropriate to use for e.g. [[folate]], since approximately 90 percent of North Americans may actually suffer more or less from [[folate deficiency]],<ref>[http://www.yourhealthbase.com/folic_acid.htm Folic Acid: Don't Be Without It!] by Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, retrieved on July 7, 2009. In turn citing:
| |
| *Boushey, Carol J., et al. A quantitative assessment of plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for vascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 274, October 4, 1995, pp. 1049- 57
| |
| *Morrison, Howard I., et al. Serum folate and risk of fatal coronary heart disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 275, June 26, 1996, pp. 1893-96
| |
| </ref> but only the 2.5 percent that have the lowest levels will fall below the standard reference range. In this case, the actual folate ranges for optimal health are substantially higher than the standard reference ranges. [[Vitamin D]] has a similar tendency. In contrast, for e.g. [[uric acid]], having a level not exceeding the standard reference range still does not exclude the risk of getting gout or kidney stones. Furthermore, for most [[toxin]]s, the standard reference range is generally lower than the level of toxic effect. | |
| | |
| A problem with optimal health range is a lack of a standard method of estimating the ranges. The limits may be defined as those where the health risks exceed a certain threshold, but with various risk profiles between different measurements (such as folate and vitamin D), and even different risk aspects for one and the same measurement (such as both [[Vitamin A deficiency|deficiency]] and [[Hypervitaminosis A|toxicity of vitamin A]]) it is difficult to standardize. Subsequently, optimal health ranges, when given by various sources, have an additional [[Statistical variability|variability]] caused by various definitions of the parameter. Also, as with standard reference ranges, there should be specific ranges for different determinants that affects the values, such as sex, age etc. Ideally, there should rather be an estimation of what is the optimal value for every individual, when taking all significant factors of that individual into account - a task that may be hard to achieve by studies, but long clinical experience by a physician may make this method more preferable than using reference ranges.
| |
| {{anchor|cutoff}}
| |
| | |
| ==One-sided cut-off values==
| |
| In many cases, only one side of the range is usually of interest, such as with markers of pathology including [[cancer antigen 19-9]], where it is generally without any clinical significance to have a value below what is usual in the population. Therefore, such targets are often given with only one limit of the reference range given, and, strictly, such values are rather ''cut-off values'' or ''threshold values''.
| |
| | |
| They may represent both standard ranges and optimal health ranges. Also, they may represent an appropriate value to distinguish healthy person from a specific disease, although this gives additional variability by different diseases being distinguished. For example, for [[NT-proBNP]], a lower cut-off value is used in distinguishing healthy babies from those with [[acyanotic heart disease]], compared to the cut-off value used in distinguishing healthy babies from those with [[congenital nonspherocytic anemia]].<ref name=Moses2011>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735842_3 Screening for Congenital Heart Disease with NT-proBNP: Results] By Emmanuel Jairaj Moses, Sharifah A.I. Mokhtar, Amir Hamzah, Basir Selvam Abdullah, and Narazah Mohd Yusoff. Laboratory Medicine. 2011;42(2):75-80. © 2011 American Society for Clinical Pathology</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==General drawbacks==
| |
| For standard as well as optimal health ranges, and cut-offs, sources of [[Accuracy and precision|inaccuracy and imprecision]] include:
| |
| | |
| *Instruments and lab techniques used, or how the measurements are interpreted by observers. These may apply both to the instruments etc. used to establish the reference ranges and the instruments, etc. used to acquire the value for the individual to whom these ranges is applied. To compensate, individual laboratories should have their own lab ranges to account for the instruments used in the laboratory.
| |
| | |
| *[[Risk_factor#General_determinants|Determinants]] such as age, diet, etc. that are not compensated for. Optimally, there should be reference ranges from a reference group that is as similar as possible to each individual they are applied to, but it's practically impossible to compensate for every single determinant, often not even when the reference ranges are established from multiple measurements of the same individual they are applied to, because of [[test-retest]] variability.
| |
| | |
| Also, reference ranges tend to give the impression of definite thresholds that clearly separate "good" or "bad" values, while in reality there are generally continuously increasing risks with increased distance from usual or optimal values.
| |
| | |
| With this and uncompensated factors in mind, the ideal interpretation method of a test result would rather consist of a comparison of what would be expected or optimal in the individual when taking all factors and conditions of that individual into account, rather than strictly classifying the values as "good" or "bad" by using reference ranges from other people.
| |
| | |
| ==Examples==
| |
| * [[Reference ranges for blood tests]]
| |
| [[File:Blood values sorted by mass and molar concentration.png|thumb|700px|center|[[Reference ranges for blood tests]], sorted by mass and molar concentration.]]
| |
| * [[Reference ranges for urine tests]]
| |
| | |
| == See also ==
| |
| *[[Clinical pathology]]
| |
| *[[Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine]]
| |
| *[[Medical technologist]]
| |
| *[[Reference ranges for blood tests]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==Further reading==
| |
| *The procedures and vocabulary referring to reference intervals: CLSI (Committee for Laboratory Standards Institute) and IFCC (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry) ''CLSI - Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Laboratory; Approved guideline'' - Third Edition. Document C28-A3 (ISBN 1-56238-682-4)Wayne, PA, USA, 2008
| |
| *[http://www.biostat.envt.fr/spip/spip.php?article63 Reference Value Advisor] : A free set of Excel macros allowing the determination of reference intervals in accordance with the CLSI procedures. Based on: {{cite doi|10.1111/j.1939-165X.2011.00287.x}}
| |
| | |
| {{Blood tests}}
| |
| {{Urine tests}}
| |
| {{CSF tests}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Research]]
| |
| [[Category:Clinical pathology]]
| |