Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 52: 880-885, 2006. First published March 2, 2006; 10.1373/clinchem.2005.063107
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2005.063107v1
52/5/880    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Web of Science
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G. R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G. R. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Informatics and Statistics
(Clinical Chemistry. 2006;52:880-885.)
© 2006 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

General Clinical Chemistry

Effect of the Reporting-Interval Size on Critical Difference Estimation: Beyond "2.77"

Graham Ross Dallas Jones

1 Department of Chemical Pathology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, and Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Address for correspondence: Department of Chemical Pathology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Victoria St., Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia. Fax 61-2-8382-2489; e-mail gjones{at}stvincents.com.au.

Background: The reporting interval is the bin size used to report numerical pathology results and must be determined for every analyte. The influence of the size of the reporting interval on the critical difference (CD) between two results from the same patient has not been addressed previously.

Methods: The effect of changing the reporting-interval size (RIS) on CDs was modeled by use of a spreadsheet application. The findings were applied to data on CDs with analytical precision values from our laboratory.

Results: As the RIS increases relative to the combined analytical and within-person biological variation, there is an approximately linear increase in the CD from the value determined by use of published techniques. The revised estimate is as follows: CD = 21/2 x z x (SDa2 + SDi2)1/2 + 1.5 x RIS, where CD, SD, and RIS are all in the same units. This effect is seen for any probability associated with the critical difference and for both uni- and bidirectional changes.

Conclusions: The choice of reporting interval should be made in the light of assay requirements. Where there is a clinical need for detection of small changes in analyte concentration, the reporting interval should be kept small relative to the combined variation attributable to assay precision and within-person biological variation.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Ann Clin BiochemHome page
G. R. D. Jones
Critical difference calculations revised: inclusion of variation in standard deviation with analyte concentration
Ann Clin Biochem, November 1, 2009; 46(6): 517 - 519.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.