The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An appraisal of statistical procedures used in derivation of reference intervals
Abstract
When conducting studies to derive reference intervals (RIs), various statistical procedures are commonly applied at each step, from the planning stages to final computation of RIs. Determination of the necessary sample size is an important consideration, and evaluation of at least 400 individuals in each subgroup has been recommended to establish reliable common RIs in multicenter studies. Multiple regression analysis allows identification of the most important factors contributing to variation in test results, while accounting for possible confounding relationships among these factors. Of the various approaches proposed for judging the necessity of partitioning reference values, nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the likely method of choice owing to its ability to handle multiple groups and being able to adjust for multiple factors. Box-Cox power transformation often has been used to transform data to a Gaussian distribution for parametric computation of RIs. However, this transformation occasionally fails. Therefore, the non-parametric method based on determination of the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles following sorting of the data, has been recommended for general use. The performance of the Box-Cox transformation can be improved by introducing an additional parameter representing the origin of transformation. In simulations, the confidence intervals (CIs) of reference limits (RLs) calculated by the parametric method were narrower than those calculated by the non-parametric approach. However, the margin of difference was rather small owing to additional variability in parametrically-determined RLs introduced by estimation of parameters for the Box-Cox transformation. The parametric calculation method may have an advantage over the non-parametric method in allowing identification and exclusion of extreme values during RI computation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1537–51.
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
Kratzsch, J., Fiedler, G. M., Leichtle, A., Brügel, M., Buchbinder, S., Otto, L., Sabri, O., Matthes, G., & Thiery, J. (2005) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2004.047399 · Cited by 235
Cited by
Reference intervals: current status, recent developments and future considerations
Ozarda, Y. (2016) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2016.001 · Cited by 264
Eisenhofer, G., Peitzsch, M., Kaden, D., Langton, K., Pamporaki, C., Masjkur, J., Tsatsaronis, G., Mangelis, A., Williams, T. A., Reincke, M., et al. (2017) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2017.05.002 · Cited by 171
Ichihara, K., Ozarda, Y., Barth, J. H., Klee, G., Shimizu, Y., Xia, L., Hoffmann, M., Shah, S., Matsha, T., Wassung, J., et al. (2017) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2016.09.015 · Cited by 56
Self-citationVanoverschelde, L., Kelchtermans, H., Musial, J., de Laat, B., & Devreese, K. M. J. (2019) · Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1002/rth2.12207 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Ichihara, K., & Boyd, J. C.
- Venue
- cclm
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2010-11-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1537-1551
- ISSN
- 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
- 1437-4331
- OpenAlex
- W2014851516
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: An appraisal of statistical procedures used in derivation of reference intervals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/cclm.2010.319
- The paper
- Ichihara, K., & Boyd, J. C. (2010). An appraisal of statistical procedures used in derivation of reference intervals. cclm. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2010.319
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.