Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8857166

[Reference intervals, discussed again].

T Kawai
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The concept of 'reference intervals' proposed by NCCLS DOCUMENT C28-P has been introduced in Japan, and it has been widely accepted among laboratory scientists and clinicians. However, the terms 'reference values' and 'reference intervals' appear to be misunderstood by some. Normal ranges which have been used conventionally should not be simply renamed 'reference intervals'. The term 'reference intervals' should be strictly reserved for the ones which are determined based on the NCCLS recommendation. However, it is not an easy work, almost impractical for most clinical laboratories to follow strictly the NCCLS document C28-P. Therefore, the author suggests [correction of suggest] a multi-institutional cooperative activity to establish the reference intervals; the reference intervals for 13 serum proteins among Japanese adults have been successfully determined with the cooperative work of 7 clinical laboratories. 'Reference values' in a strict sense has been defined by NCCLS to be the observed values among reference individuals. However, 'reference values' in a broad sense should be understood to be any consensus value set by a professional group(s) for the purpose of clinical decision making.

Explore related subjects

Decision MakingHumansPathology, ClinicalReference ValuesEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Kawai. 1996. [Reference intervals, discussed again].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8857166/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Users' guides to the medical literature: XVI. How to use a treatment recommendation. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group and the Cochrane Applicability Methods Working Group.

Clinicians can often find treatment recommendations in traditional narrative reviews and the discussion sections of original articles and meta-analyses. Making a treatment recommendation involves framing a question, identifying management options and outcomes, collecting and summarizing evidence, and applying value judgments or preferences to arrive at an optimal course of action. Each step in this process can be conducted systematically (thus protecting against bias) or unsystematically (leaving the process open to bias). Clinicians faced with a plethora of recommendations may wish to attend to those that are less likely to be biased. Therefore, we propose a hierarchy of rigor of recommendations to guide clinicians when judging the usefulness of particular recommendations. Recommendations with the highest rigor consider all relevant options and outcomes, include a comprehensive collection of the methodologically highest quality data with an explicit strategy for summarizing the data (that is, a systematic review), and make an explicit statement of the values or preferences involved in moving from evidence to action. High rigor recommendations come from systematically developed, evidence-based practice guidelines or rigorously conducted decision analyses. Systematic reviews, which typically do not consider all relevant options and outcomes or make the preferences underlying recommendations explicit, offer intermediate rigor recommendations. Traditional approaches in which the collection and assessment of evidence remains unsystematic, all relevant options and outcomes may not be considered, and values remain implicit, provide recommendations of weak rigor. In an era in which clinicians are barraged by recommendations as to how to manage their patients, this hierarchy provides a potentially useful set of guides.

Decision Making↗