PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 645638

Multivariate estimation of reference ranges.

Abstract

This paper describes a new method for estimating reference ranges of 21 frequently performed laboratory tests utilizing routine test results of selected hospital patients. Computer programs perform the selection of patient records and the statistical analysis. The patient selection criteria of (1) short hospital stay and (2) short laboratory record provide a data base rich in normal results. The statistical program excludes records with excessive variation, and in repeated data-exclusion passes through the data base progressively narrows the range of acceptability. The decision to exclude a record is based on the "pooled variation." The average value of the "pooled variation" increases as the range is narrowed. This approach insures that the process stops after a few passes, and the most consistent data remain included in the calculation of reference ranges. Statistical properties of the data sets, as well as comparison with normal ranges for healthy subjects and review of 560 clinical charts, support the idea that serviceable reference ranges are obtained. The method is suitable for monitoring the reference ranges of the laboratory at frequent intervals.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B M Horvath. 1978. Multivariate estimation of reference ranges.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp%2F69.4.398

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Duplication in a medical department of tests previously performed in a primary sector].

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an insufficient flow of information from the primary to the secondary sector was the cause of unnecessary duplications of investigations. From practitioners of 202 patients admitted to a medical department information about paraclinical examinations during the previous year was obtained. In all 111 general practitioners participated. An average of 3.0 blood analyses and 0.9 other investigations were carried out on each patient. 44% of the patients were not investigated at all. An average of 1.9 blood analyses and 0.2 other investigations on each patient were repeated. 22% of the repetitions in both cases were due to insufficient communication between the practitioner and the hospital. These figures seem low and insufficient communication between the primary and the secondary sector appears to be a minor problem.

Blood Chemical Analysis