Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11452/30010
Title: Distinguishing reference intervals and clinical decision limits – A review by the IFCC committee on reference intervals and decision limits
Authors: Sikaris, Ken Andrew
Streichert, Thomas
Macri, Joseph
Uludağ Üniversitesi/Tıp Fakültesi/Tıbbı Biyokimya Anabilim Dalı.
İlçöl, Yeşim Özarda
AAL-8873-2021
35741320500
Keywords: Reference intervals
Clinical decision limits
C-RIDL
Clinical laboratories
Prostate-specific antigen
European atherosclerosis society
Prediatric peference intervals
Approved recommendation1987
Joint consensus statement
High-density-lipoprotein
Reference values
99th percentile
Analytical performance
Global multicenter
Medical laboratory technology
Issue Date: 18-May-2018
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Citation: Özarda, Y. vd. (2018). ''Distinguishing reference intervals and clinical decision limits – A review by the IFCC committee on reference intervals and decision limits''. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 55(6), 420-431.
Abstract: Reference Intervals (RIs) and clinical decision limits (CDLs) are a vital part of the information supplied by laboratories to support the interpretation of numerical clinical pathology results. RIs describe the typical distribution of results seen in a healthy reference population while CDLs are associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes or are diagnostic for the presence of a specific disease. However, as the two concepts are sometimes confused, there is a need to clarify the differences between these terms and to ensure they are easily distinguished, especially because CDLs have a clinical association with specific diseases and risks, thereby implying that effective clinical interventions are available. It is important to note that, because population-based RIs are derived from the range of values expected in a typical community population, laboratory results that fall outside a RI do not necessarily indicate a disease but rather that additional medical follow-up and/or treatment may be warranted. In contrast, CDLs are associated with a risk of specific adverse outcomes, and are commonly used to interpret laboratory test results, including lipid parameters, glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and tumor markers, to determine risk of disease, to diagnose or to treat. In recent years, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Committee on Reference Intervals and Decision Limits (C-RIDL) has focused primarily on RIs and has performed multicenter studies to obtain common RIs. However, the broader responsibility of the Committee, from its name, includes decision limits. C-RIDL now aims to emphasize the importance of the correct use of both RIs and CDLs and to encourage laboratories to specify the appropriate information to clinicians as needed. This review discusses RIs and CDLs in detail, describes the similarities and the differences between these two important tools in laboratory medicine, and clearly explains the processes used to define them. C-RIDL encourages the involvement of laboratory professionals in the establishment of both RIs and CDLs.
URI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2018.1482256
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408363.2018.1482256
http://hdl.handle.net/11452/30010
ISSN: 1040-8363
1549-781X
Appears in Collections:PubMed
Scopus
Web of Science

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.