The importance of correct stratifications when comparing directly and indirectly estimated reference intervals

Abstract

Abstract Objectives There are generally two major reasons for the comparison of reference intervals (RIs): when externally determined RIs (from the literature or provided by a manufacturer) are compared with presently used intra-laboratory RIs and when indirectly estimated RIs are compared with directly established RIs. Discrepancies within these comparisons may occur for two reasons: 1. the pre-analytical and/or analytical conditions do not agree and/or 2. biological variables influencing the establishment of RIs have not been considered adequately. If directly and indirectly estimated reference intervals (RIs) are compared with each other, they very often agree. Sometimes, however, a comparison may differ, with the reason for any discrepancy not being further studied. A major reason for differences in the comparison of RIs is that the requirement for stratification has been neglected. Methods The present report outlines the consequences to RI comparison if stratification is neglected during RI determination with the main variables affecting RIs being sex and age. Alanine aminotransferase was chosen as an example in which the RIs depend on both these factors. Results Both direct and indirect approaches lead to erroneous RIs if stratification for variables which are known to affect the estimation of RIs is not performed adequately. However, failing to include a required stratification in procedures for directly determined RIs affects the outcome in a different way to indirectly determined RIs. Conclusions The resulting difference between direct and indirect RIs is often misinterpreted as an incorrect RI estimation of the indirect method.