Establishing reference intervals in the coagulation laboratory

20Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Obtaining a reference interval (RI) is a challenge for any laboratory and becomes more complicated in the coagulation laboratory due to testing on samples with limited stability on reagents that are poorly standardized. Reference intervals are required to be able to evaluate results in relation to a patients’ hemostatic disorder. This becomes one of the most important tasks conducted in the coagulation laboratory. However, many laboratories lack the time, finances and in many cases the expertise to conduct this study. Methods: Many RI are obtained from package inserts, or from publications written by experts in lieu of laboratories conducting their own studies. An overview of validating reference intervals and options for verifying or transference of reference intervals is discussed. Results: Based on the confidence interval and the acceptability of risk laboratories are willing to accept, coagulation laboratories have options to conduct robust studies for their RI. Data mining or global reference studies may help to provide data for age specific ranges. Conclusions: Pre-analytical variables and selection of healthy subjects have the largest impact on coagulation testing outcomes and need to be well controlled during the establishment of reference intervals. Laboratories have options in lieu of conducting a full validation on how to verify RI based on smaller RI studies or transference of RI after determining compatibility of the original RI study.

References Powered by Scopus

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Castellone, D. D. (2017, May 1). Establishing reference intervals in the coagulation laboratory. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12661

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘240481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

63%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

13%

Researcher 3

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 14

52%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 8

30%

Immunology and Microbiology 3

11%

Arts and Humanities 2

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0