HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an electronic Letter to the Editor about this paper Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Boyd, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boyd, J. C.

Cautions in the Adoption of Common Reference Intervals

Department of Pathology, Division of Laboratory Medicine/Clinical Laboratories, P.O. Box 800214, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0214

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Transferability of test results for a given analyte has long been a goal of the laboratory community. Achievement of transferability will require development of standardized methods that have the least possible measurement uncertainty and are traceable to reference standards. Once accomplished, transferability will allow comparison of laboratory results regardless of the individual performing laboratory and will provide long-term stability of results, enabling longitudinal results to be followed for individual patients. Transferability remains an elusive goal, however. Analytical hindrances include the lack of established reference measurement systems for many quantities, lack of traceability of field methods to the reference system, and lot-to-lot variability in reagents and calibrators.

When no population-specific differences exist, the use of common reference intervals for transferable tests can be envisioned. Enthusiasm for the use of common reference intervals has grown . . . [Full Text of this Article]