Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests

BACKGROUND: The intra‐individual reference range is generally narrower than the commonly used reference range. Consequently, close monitoring of changes in the laboratory test results of individuals based on the inter‐individual reference range remains challenging. METHODS: We examined the determina...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hirabayashi, Yoji, Tsukada, Yutaka, Sakurai, Takuya, Ohno, Hideki, Kizaki, Takako
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33107085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23639
_version_ 1783652714662592512
author Hirabayashi, Yoji
Tsukada, Yutaka
Sakurai, Takuya
Ohno, Hideki
Kizaki, Takako
author_facet Hirabayashi, Yoji
Tsukada, Yutaka
Sakurai, Takuya
Ohno, Hideki
Kizaki, Takako
author_sort Hirabayashi, Yoji
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The intra‐individual reference range is generally narrower than the commonly used reference range. Consequently, close monitoring of changes in the laboratory test results of individuals based on the inter‐individual reference range remains challenging. METHODS: We examined the determination of individual reference ranges using four indicators of nutritional conditions: transferrin (TRF), albumin (ALB), retinol‐binding protein (RBP), and transthyretin (TTR). The subjects comprised 20 healthy individuals and blood samples were collected and tested five times at 2‐week intervals. We used the measurement results for the four indicators and examined individual reference ranges using four methods, including calculation methods based on the reference change value and Bayesian inference. RESULTS: The resulting intra‐individual reference ranges were narrower than the currently used inter‐individual reference range for all measurements using four methods. Furthermore, the intra‐individual coefficient of variation [CV (intra)] was smaller than the inter‐individual coefficient of variation [CV (inter)] for TRF, RBP, and TTR for all 20 subjects. The means CV (intra) for the four indicators were also lower than the corresponding CV (inter). CONCLUSIONS: The intra‐individual reference range can be used to validate the standard deviation and coefficient of variation for currently used indicators. Moreover, Bayesian methods are speculated to be the most versatile.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7891514
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78915142021-03-10 Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests Hirabayashi, Yoji Tsukada, Yutaka Sakurai, Takuya Ohno, Hideki Kizaki, Takako J Clin Lab Anal Research Articles BACKGROUND: The intra‐individual reference range is generally narrower than the commonly used reference range. Consequently, close monitoring of changes in the laboratory test results of individuals based on the inter‐individual reference range remains challenging. METHODS: We examined the determination of individual reference ranges using four indicators of nutritional conditions: transferrin (TRF), albumin (ALB), retinol‐binding protein (RBP), and transthyretin (TTR). The subjects comprised 20 healthy individuals and blood samples were collected and tested five times at 2‐week intervals. We used the measurement results for the four indicators and examined individual reference ranges using four methods, including calculation methods based on the reference change value and Bayesian inference. RESULTS: The resulting intra‐individual reference ranges were narrower than the currently used inter‐individual reference range for all measurements using four methods. Furthermore, the intra‐individual coefficient of variation [CV (intra)] was smaller than the inter‐individual coefficient of variation [CV (inter)] for TRF, RBP, and TTR for all 20 subjects. The means CV (intra) for the four indicators were also lower than the corresponding CV (inter). CONCLUSIONS: The intra‐individual reference range can be used to validate the standard deviation and coefficient of variation for currently used indicators. Moreover, Bayesian methods are speculated to be the most versatile. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7891514/ /pubmed/33107085 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23639 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Hirabayashi, Yoji
Tsukada, Yutaka
Sakurai, Takuya
Ohno, Hideki
Kizaki, Takako
Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title_full Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title_short Comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (NST)‐related tests
title_sort comparative evaluation of methods to determine intra‐individual reference ranges in nutrition support team (nst)‐related tests
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33107085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23639
work_keys_str_mv AT hirabayashiyoji comparativeevaluationofmethodstodetermineintraindividualreferencerangesinnutritionsupportteamnstrelatedtests
AT tsukadayutaka comparativeevaluationofmethodstodetermineintraindividualreferencerangesinnutritionsupportteamnstrelatedtests
AT sakuraitakuya comparativeevaluationofmethodstodetermineintraindividualreferencerangesinnutritionsupportteamnstrelatedtests
AT ohnohideki comparativeevaluationofmethodstodetermineintraindividualreferencerangesinnutritionsupportteamnstrelatedtests
AT kizakitakako comparativeevaluationofmethodstodetermineintraindividualreferencerangesinnutritionsupportteamnstrelatedtests