BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised about the quality of available biological variation (BV) estimates and the effect of their application in clinical practice. A European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Task and Finish Group has addressed this issue. The aim of this report is to (a) describe the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC), which verifies whether publications have included all essential elements that may impact the veracity of associated BV estimates, (b) use the BIVAC to critically appraise existing BV publications on enzymes, lipids, kidney, and diabetes-related measurands, and (c) apply metaanalysis to deliver a global within-subject BV (CV_I) estimate for alanine aminotransferase (ALT). METHODS: In the BIVAC, publications were rated as A, B, C, or D, indicating descending compliance for 14 BIVAC quality items, focusing on study design, methodology, and statistical handling. A D grade indicated that associated BV estimates should not be applied in clinical practice. Systematic searches were applied to identify BV studies for 28 different measurands. RESULTS: In total, 128 publications were identified, providing 935 different BV estimates. Nine percent achieved D scores. Outlier analysis and variance homogeneity testing were scored as C in >60% of 847 cases. Metaanalysis delivered a CV_I estimate for ALT of 15.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Application of BIVAC to BV publications identified deficiencies in required study detail and delivery, especially for statistical analysis. Those deficiencies impact the veracity of BV estimates. BV data from BIVAC-compliant studies can be combined to deliver robust global estimates for safe clinical application.

Data on biological variation are used for many purposes in laboratory medicine but concern exists over the validity of the data reported in some studies. A critical appraisal checklist has been produced by a working group established by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) to enable standardised assessment of existing and future publications of biological variation data. The checklist identifies key elements to be reported in studies to enable safe accurate and effective transport of biological variation data sets across healthcare systems. The checklist is mapped to the domains of a minimum data set required to enable this process.

Background: Biological variation (BV) data have many fundamental applications in laboratory medicine. At the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) the reliability and limitations of current BV data were discussed. The EFLM Working Group on Biological Variation is working to increase the quality of BV data by developing a European project to establish a biobank of samples from healthy subjects to be used to produce high quality BV data. Methods: The project involved six European laboratories (Milan, Italy; Bergen, Norway; Madrid, Spain; Padua, Italy; Istanbul, Turkey; Assen, The Netherlands). Blood samples were collected from 97 volunteers (44 men, aged 20–60 years; 43 women, aged 20–50 years; 10 women, aged 55–69 years). Initial subject inclusion required that participants completed an enrolment questionnaire to verify their health status. The volunteers provided blood specimens once per week for 10 weeks. A short questionnaire was completed and some laboratory tests were performed at each sampling consisting of blood collected under controlled conditions to provide serum, K₂EDTA-plasma and citrated-plasma samples. Results: Samples from six out of the 97 enroled subjects were discarded as a consequence of abnormal laboratory measurements. A biobank of 18,000 aliquots was established consisting of 120 aliquots of serum, 40 of EDTA-plasma, and 40 of citrated-plasma from each subject. The samples were stored at –80 °C. Conclusions: A biobank of well-characterised samples collected under controlled conditions has been established delivering a European resource to enable production of contemporary BV data.

Error methods – compared with uncertainty methods – offer simpler, more intuitive and practical procedures for calculating measurement uncertainty and conducting quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, uncertainty methods are preferred in other fields of science as reflected by the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. When laboratory results are used for supporting medical diagnoses, the total uncertainty consists only partially of analytical variation. Biological variation, pre- and postanalytical variation all need to be included. Furthermore, all components of the measuring procedure need to be taken into account. Performance specifications for diagnostic tests should include the diagnostic uncertainty of the entire testing process. Uncertainty methods may be particularly useful for this purpose but have yet to show their strength in laboratory medicine. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the pros and cons of error and uncertainty methods as groundwork for future consensus on their use in practical performance specifications. Error and uncertainty methods are complementary when evaluating measurement data.

BACKGROUND: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) European Biological Variation Study (EuBIVAS) has been established to deliver rigorously determined biological variation (BV) indices. EuBIVAS determined BV for serum creatinine using the enzymatic and alkaline picrate measurement methods. METHOD: In total, 91 healthy individuals (38 males, 53 females; age range, 21–69 years) were bled for 10 consecutive weeks at 6 European laboratories. An equivalent protocol was followed at each center. Sera were stored at −80 °C before analysis. Analyses for each patient were performed in duplicate within a single run on an ADVIA 2400 system (San Raffaele Hospital, Milan). The data were subjected to outlier and homogeneity analysis before performing CV-ANOVA to determine BV and analytical variation (CVA) estimates with confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The within-subject BV estimates [CVI (95% CI)] were similar for enzymatic [4.4% (4.2–4.7)] and alkaline picrate [4.7% (4.4–4.9)] methods and lower than the estimate presently available online (CVI = 5.9%). No significant male/female BV differences were found. Significant differences were observed in mean creatinine values between men and women and between Turkish individuals and those of other nationalities. Between-subject BV (CVG) estimates, stratified accordingly, produced CVG values similar to historical BV data. CVA was 1.1% for the enzymatic and 4.4% for alkaline picrate methods, indicating that alkaline picrate methods fail to fulfill analytical performance specifications for imprecision (CVAPS). CONCLUSIONS: The serum creatinine CVI obtained by EuBIVAS specifies a more stringent CVAPS than previously identified. The alkaline picrate method failed to meet this CVAPS, raising questions regarding its future use.

Using laboratory test results for diagnosis and monitoring requires a reliable reference to which the results can be compared. Currently, most reference data is derived from the population, and patients in this context are considered members of a population group rather than individuals. However, such reference data has limitations when used as the reference for an individual. A patient’s test results preferably should be compared with their own, individualized reference intervals (RI), i.e. a personalized RI (prRI). The prRI is based on the homeostatic model and can be calculated using an individual’s previous test results obtained in a steady-state situation and estimates of analytical (CV_A) and biological variation (BV). BV used to calculate the prRI can be obtained from the population (within-subject biological variation, CV_I) or an individual’s own data (within-person biological variation, CV_P). Statistically, the prediction interval provides a useful tool to calculate the interval (i.e. prRI) for future observation based on previous measurements. With the development of information technology, the data of millions of patients is stored and processed in medical laboratories, allowing the implementation of personalized laboratory medicine. PrRI for each individual should be made available as part of the laboratory information system and should be continually updated as new test results become available. In this review, we summarize the limitations of population-based RI for the diagnosis and monitoring of disease, provide an outline of the prRI concept and different approaches to its determination, including statistical considerations for deriving prRI, and discuss aspects which must be further investigated prior to implementation of prRI in clinical practice.