Difficulties in establishing reference intervals for special fluids: the example of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid and homovanillic acid in cerebrospinal fluids

Author(s):  
Jean-Louis Dhondt

AbstractBiochemical measurements in “special fluids” are complicated with the problem of reference intervals. Reference intervals are difficult to establish for these types of samples since they are usually only collected in patients with clinical suspicion of disease. Determination of neurotransmitter metabolites in cerebrospinal fluid illustrates this difficulty. This paper will review the factors and circumstances that have been identified or are suspected to modifythe concentration of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) in cerebrospinal fluid. In addition to obvious parameters such as age-related variation that can affect the concentration of 5-HIAA and HVA in cerebrospinal fluid, a varietyof other factors can explain the wide range of “control” group sizes reported in the literature. Reference intervals must take into account the purpose of cerebrospinal fluid examinations, whether they be prospective studies to explore physio-pathologic relationships or for diagnostic purposes. In the latter case, certain neurological disorders cannot be excluded if a single measured value is within the reference interval.

1990 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 756-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
G O Duncanson ◽  
H G Worth

Abstract Using a discrete analyzer and a dye-binding method, we measured magnesium in 800 patients' samples received for routine analysis. By excluding data from samples for which the calcium and (or) alkaline phosphatase values were outside defined reference limits, we established a reference interval for magnesium. Because the data showed a gaussian distribution, we could use parametric analysis to establish age-related intervals for both males and females.


1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Vaughn ◽  
S. T. Simpson ◽  
B. L. Blagburn ◽  
W. L. Whitmer ◽  
R. Heddens-Mysinger ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
O E Okosieme ◽  
Medha Agrawal ◽  
Danyal Usman ◽  
Carol Evans

Background: Gestational TSH and FT4 reference intervals may differ according to assay method but the extent of variation is unclear and has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review of published studies on TSH and FT4 reference intervals in pregnancy. Our aim was to quantify method-related differences in gestation reference intervals, across four commonly used assay methods, Abbott, Beckman, Roche, and Siemens. Methods: We searched the literature for relevant studies, published between January 2000 and December 2020, in healthy pregnant women without thyroid antibodies or disease. For each study, we extracted trimester-specific reference intervals (2.5–97.5 percentiles) for TSH and FT4 as well as the manufacturer provided reference interval for the corresponding non-pregnant population. Results: TSH reference intervals showed a wide range of study-to-study differences with upper limits ranging from 2.33 to 8.30 mU/L. FT4 lower limits ranged from 4.40–13.93 pmol/L, with consistently lower reference intervals observed with the Beckman method. Differences between non-pregnant and first trimester reference intervals were highly variable, and for most studies the TSH upper limit in the first trimester could not be predicted or extrapolated from non-pregnant values. Conclusions: Our study confirms significant intra and inter-method disparities in gestational thyroid hormone reference intervals. The relationship between pregnant and non-pregnant values is inconsistent and does not support the existing practice in some laboratories of extrapolating gestation references from non-pregnant values. Laboratories should invest in deriving method-specific gestation reference intervals for their population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document