Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 34: 2009-2011, 1988;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kroll, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kroll, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 2009-2011, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Analytical bias for cholesterol and the percent of the population deemed at risk for coronary heart disease

MH Kroll, M Ruddel and RJ Elin
Clinical Pathology Department, Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

The effect of methodological bias on the population at risk is dependent on the location of the reference value in the distribution of the population. We fitted the cumulative distribution for cholesterol to a rational function and calculated the apparent reference values for four biased methods: Technicon SMAC (2.6%), DuPont aca (4.0 to 4.8%), Kodak DT-60 (-2.0 to -5.5%), and BMD Reflotron (-7.4 to -7.8%). With the true and apparent reference values for cholesterol and the rational function, we determined the percentage increase or decrease in the population deemed at risk for coronary heart disease. The population at risk increased by as much as 48% for methods with positive bias, and decreased by as much as 54% for methods with negative bias. If we restrict the percentage of the population incorrectly diagnosed to 3% and use reference values (cut points) recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program, the maximum allowable methodological bias would be 1.6% for positive bias and -1.55% for negative bias. Therefore, an absolute methodological bias of 3% (as recommended by the Laboratory Standardization Panel) may be too liberal.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.