2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.05.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of reference intervals derived by direct and indirect methods based on compatible datasets obtained in Turkey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
25
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
25
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike most previous researches that could not explicitly determine whether the distribution of normal group acquired by indirect techniques was close enough to the actual healthy population, the major strength of our study is the availability to use the RPINCE data as a gold standard. Similar approach was also found in a recent paper, which made successful comparison between direct and four indirect methods, including Hoffmann, Bhattacharya, Arzideh, and Wosniok [ 22 ]. Our study reported another two methods, GMM and SOM, which could jointly guide the application of indirect sampling techniques in real world research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Unlike most previous researches that could not explicitly determine whether the distribution of normal group acquired by indirect techniques was close enough to the actual healthy population, the major strength of our study is the availability to use the RPINCE data as a gold standard. Similar approach was also found in a recent paper, which made successful comparison between direct and four indirect methods, including Hoffmann, Bhattacharya, Arzideh, and Wosniok [ 22 ]. Our study reported another two methods, GMM and SOM, which could jointly guide the application of indirect sampling techniques in real world research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…To assess the bias of RIs established by indirect sampling techniques from that established by direct technique, the ratio of between-method difference in reference limits to between-individual SD was calculated, where between-individual SD is 1/3.92 of RI width established by direct technique [ 22 ]. The conventional threshold of bias ratio is 0.25 (allowable) or 0.375 (minimal), which can be used to judge the performance of GMM and SOM.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The multivariate algorithm described below was used to select a set of individuals suitable for determination of the relevant RIs for each test. The indirect derivation of RIs from the laboratory information system was reported previously [ 14 , 15 ]. The value of the index was used to calculate the new reference range only when all statistically significant related variables of the index were in the existing RIs.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…for the nomenclature, terminology, units and formats used, to ensure reproducibility of all the steps of the total laboratory testing procedure, possibly for international application [10,11]. This is an on-going global process, as laboratories in Europe [12][13][14][15][16][17], Africa [18][19][20], North America [21], Asia [22][23][24] and Australia [25] aim to derive nation-specific RIs with multicentre studies. Despite this welcome effort, most studies have been conducted with very lenient inclusion/exclusion criteria due to a missing overarching definition of "health", covering both the normative aspects (well-being and functioning) and more descriptive aspects of health evaluation (test result assessment).…”
Section: Introduction (500 Words)mentioning
confidence: 99%