Reference intervals: past, present, and future

Abstract

Clinical laboratory test results alone are of little value in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions; as such, a clinically actionable cutoff or reference interval is required to provide context for result interpretation. Healthcare practitioners base their diagnoses, follow-up treatments, and subsequent testing on these reference points. However, they may not be aware of inherent limitations related to the definition and derivation of reference intervals. Laboratorians are responsible for providing the reference intervals they report with results. Yet, the establishment and verification of reference intervals using conventional direct methods are complicated by resource constraints or unique patient demographics. To facilitate standardized reference interval best practices, multiple global scientific societies are actively drafting guidelines and seeking funding to promote these initiatives. Numerous national and international multicenter collaborations demonstrate the ability to leverage combined resources to conduct large reference interval studies by direct methods. However, not all demographics are equally accessible. Novel indirect methods are attractive solutions that utilize computational methods to define reference distributions and reference intervals from mixed data sets of pathologic and non-pathologic patient test results. In an effort to make reference intervals more accurate and personalized, individual-based reference intervals are shown to be more useful than population-based reference intervals in detecting clinically significant analyte changes in a patient that might otherwise go unrecognized when using wider, population-based reference intervals. Additionally, continuous reference intervals can provide more accurate ranges as compared to age-based partitions for individuals that are near the ends of the age partition. The advantages and disadvantages of different reference interval approaches as well as the advancement of non-conventional reference interval studies are discussed in this review.

Keywords:

• Reference intervals
• statistical methods
• laboratory medicine

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.