BACKGROUND: A problem when producing reference intervals for elderly individuals is that they often suffer from a number of diseases and they are most often on medication. If all such persons are excluded, there is a risk that the residual subgroup may not be representative of the population, we therefore wanted to compare the effects different exclusion criteria has on the reference intervals.
METHODS: We measured parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, albumin and cystatin C in a cohort of 70-year-old males and females (n = 1003). Reference intervals for PTH for males and females were calculated for the entire population and after exclusion of persons with calcium >2.60 mmol/L, calcium >2.51 mmol/L, diabetes, reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and cardiovascular diseases.
RESULTS: The calculated PTH reference interval 16 (CI 14-17) to 94 (CI 87-101) ng/L. Exclusion of study subjects resulted in smaller reference sample groups, but the reference limits remained within the 90% confidence intervals of the original reference limits. The selections thus had a very limited effect on the calculated reference interval for PTH.
CONCLUSIONS: Exclusion of elderly individuals with high calcium concentrations, diabetes, reduced GFR or cardiovascular disease has little effect on the reference interval for PTH. It is better not to exclude these individuals, as it will provide a broader base for the reference interval.
BACKGROUND: Different cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta 1-42 (Abeta(1-42)), total Tau (Tau) and Tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-Tau) levels are reported, but currently there is a lack of quality control programmes. The aim of this study was to compare the measurements of these CSF biomarkers, between and within centres. METHODS: Three CSF-pool samples were distributed to 13 laboratories in 2004 and the same samples were again distributed to 18 laboratories in 2008. In 2004 six laboratories measured Abeta(1-42), Tau and P-Tau and seven laboratories measured one or two of these marker(s) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). In 2008, 12 laboratories measured all three markers, three laboratories measured one or two marker(s) by ELISAs and three laboratories measured the markers by Luminex. RESULTS: In 2004, the ELISA intercentre coefficients of variance (interCV) were 31%, 21% and 13% for Abeta(1-42), Tau and P-Tau, respectively. These were 37%, 16% and 15%, respectively, in 2008. When we restricted the analysis to the Innotest((R)) (N = 13) for Abeta(1-42), lower interCV were calculated (22%). The centres that participated in both years (N = 9) showed interCVs of 21%, 15% and 9% and intra-centre coefficients (intraCV) of variance of 25%,18% and 7% in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: The highest variability was found for Abeta(1-42). The variabilities for Tau and P-Tau were lower in both years. The centres that participated in both years showed a high intraCV comparable to their interCV, indicating that there is not only a high variation between but also within centres. Besides a uniform standardization of (pre)analytical procedures, the same assay should be used to decrease the inter/intracentre variation.