The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reference intervals: current status, recent developments and future considerations
Open accessAbstract
Reliable and accurate reference intervals (RIs) for laboratory analyses are an integral part of the process of correct interpretation of clinical laboratory test results. RIs given in laboratory reports have an important role in aiding the clinician in interpreting test results in reference to values for healthy populations. Since the 1980s, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) has been proactive in establishing recommendations to clarify the true significance of the term 'RIs, to select the appropriate reference population and statistically analyse the data. The C28-A3 guideline published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and IFCC is still the most widely-used source of reference in this area. In recent years, protocols additional to the Guideline have been published by the IFCC, Committee on Reference Intervals and Decision Limits (C-RIDL), including all details of multicenter studies on RIs to meet the requirements in this area. Multicentric RIs studies are the most important development in the area of RIs. Recently, the C-RIDL has performed many multicentric studies to obtain common RIs. Confusion of RIs and clinical decision limits (CDLs) remains an issue and pediatric and geriatric age groups are a significant problem. For future studies of RIs, the genetic effect would seem to be the most challenging area. The aim of the review is to present the current theory and practice of RIs, with special emphasis given to multicenter RIs studies, RIs studies for pediatric and geriatric age groups, clinical decision limits and partitioning by genetic effects on RIs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
Reference intervals: the way forward
Ceriotti, F., Hinzmann, R., & Panteghini, M. (2009) · Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1258/acb.2008.008170 · Cited by 199
Defining Cerebrospinal Fluid White Blood Cell Count Reference Values in Neonates and Young Infants
Kestenbaum, L. A., Ebberson, J., Zorc, J. J., Hodinka, R. L., & Shah, S. S. (2010) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1181 · Cited by 168
Cited by
Performance of plasma phosphorylated tau 181 and 217 in the community
Mielke, M. M., Dage, J. L., Frank, R. D., Algeciras-Schimnich, A., Knopman, D. S., Lowe, V. J., Bu, G., Vemuri, P., Graff-Radford, J., Jack, C. R., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01822-2 · Cited by 465
Thienpont, L. M., Van Uytfanghe, K., De Grande, L. A. C., Reynders, D., Das, B., Faix, J. D., MacKenzie, F., Decallonne, B., Hishinuma, A., Lapauw, B., et al. (2017) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2016.269456 · Cited by 101
The risk of penetration–aspiration related to residue in the pharynx
Steele, C. M., Peladeau-Pigeon, M., Barrett, E., & Wolkin, T. S. (2020) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-20-00042 · Cited by 57
Ni, L., Xue, P., An, C., Yu, X., Qu, J., Yao, Y., & Li, Y. (2021) · Journal of Healthcare Engineering · doi:10.1155/2021/7119779 · Cited by 48
(2018) · doi:10.3967/bes2018.011
Metadata
- Authors
- Ozarda, Y.
- Venue
- Biochemia Medica
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-16
- ISSN
- 1330-0962 (ISSN-L)
- 1846-7482
- OpenAlex
- W2297073812
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reference intervals: current status, recent developments and future considerations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11613/bm.2016.001
- The paper
- Ozarda, Y. (2016). Reference intervals: current status, recent developments and future considerations. Biochemia Medica. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2016.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.