Result Interpretation in Skewed Populations—Are Common Reference Intervals Inadequate?

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Reference intervals (RIs) are defined as the central 95th percentile of a healthy population, and many biomarkers exhibit a skewed result distribution. Here we demonstrate interpretive variations for results from a gaussian vs skewed distribution RI. METHODS: De-identified patient data were extracted from the laboratory information system for sodium and total testosterone, representing approximately gaussian and skewed reference populations, respectively. RIs and the Box-Cox variables (lambda, mu, and sigma) were obtained using refineR, with individual results and population distributions evaluated using RI midpoint vs median, interquartile range (IQR) values, z scores, abnormality flagging rates, and cumulative percentiles. RESULTS: For sodium, the RI midpoint, population mean, and median were similar at 138.8 and 139.0 mEq/L, respectively. Total testosterone demonstrated a skewed result distribution with RI midpoint (473 ng/dL; 16.3 nmol/L) closer to the 75th percentile (522 ng/dL; 18.1 nmol/L), impacting interpretation when results fall in the lower half of the RI. By illustration, a testosterone result of 294 ng/dL (10.2 nmol/L) was misinterpreted as "borderline low." Reporting the z score of -0.55 and cumulative percentile of 0.28 may have provided assurance this result is well within a "disease-free" population range, preventing unnecessary investigation. Conversely, for a case of serial sodium results of 143 to 146 mEq/L in a polydipsic patient, presentation of z scores (1.97 to 3.01) and cumulative percentiles 0.97 to 1.00 may have prompted further investigation, preventing delayed disease recognition. CONCLUSIONS: RIs help interpret laboratory results vs a "disease-free" population; however, skewed distributions may affect result interpretation when clinicians lack knowledge of population result distributions. Interpretive aids may improve comprehension.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.