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


     

Clinical Chemistry 50: 901-906, 2004. First published March 11, 2004; 10.1373/clinchem.2003.023762
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2003.023762v1
50/5/901    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 Koduah, M.
Right arrow Articles by Nix, B. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koduah, M.
Right arrow Articles by Nix, B. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
(Clinical Chemistry. 2004;50:901-906.)
© 2004 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Laboratory Management

Centile Charts I: New Method of Assessment for Univariate Reference Intervals

Martin Koduah1, Terence C. Iles1,a and Barry J. Nix2

1 School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Senghennydd Road, PO Box 926, Cardiff CF24 4YH, United Kingdom.2 Department of Epidemiology Statistics and Public Health, University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

aAuthor for correspondence. Fax 44-29-2087-4199; e-mail iles{at}cardiff.ac.uk.

Background: We introduce a new criterion, the percentile inclusion probability, for comparing methods for calculating reference intervals. The criterion is compared with a previously published measure of reliability suggested by Linnet (Linnet K. Clin Chem 1987;33:381–6), the ratio of the width of the confidence interval for the percentile to that of the reference interval.

Methods: Data were simulated from a range of theoretical statistical distributions representing the shapes of data sets encountered in clinical investigations. The two-stage transformation of the data to a gaussian distribution recommended by the IFCC was compared with a nonparametric approach.

Results: The percentile inclusion probability criterion identified that the parametric approach is in some cases seriously affected by bias. Using different parametric models, we compared nonparametric and parametric methods for two sets of clinical data and showed that the parametric approach is susceptible to model choice.

Conclusions: Sample sizes significantly greater than those currently recommended are required to establish reference intervals, regardless of whether parametric or nonparametric methods are used. Parametric methods are preferable when the data are truly gaussian, but are only marginally better than nonparametric methods when data transformation is needed to achieve a gaussian shape.




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


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
T. G. Cooper, E. Noonan, S. von Eckardstein, J. Auger, H.W. G. Baker, H. M. Behre, T. B. Haugen, T. Kruger, C. Wang, M. T. Mbizvo, et al.
World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 24, 2009; (2009) dmp048v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
E. Grossi, R. Colombo, S. Cavuto, and C. Franzini
The REALAB Project: A New Method for the Formulation of Reference Intervals Based on Current Data
Clin. Chem., July 1, 2005; 51(7): 1232 - 1240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.