ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Comparison of Univariate and Multivariate Reference Interval Methods.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical practice, reference intervals play a pivotal role in interpreting laboratory test results. Yet, when several tests are taken into consideration simultaneously, the traditional univariate intervals might not suffice due to the elevated risk of Type 1 errors.
methodsThis study introduces and evaluates two multivariate reference interval techniques: one based on Mahalanobis distance and the other an adaptation of the multivariate confidence interval (MCI). Using Monte Carlo simulations, we focused our assessments on the interplay between "serum ferritin and transferrin saturation" values.
resultsUpon evaluation, it became evident that the multivariate methods significantly reduced false positives. They presented enhanced accuracy over traditional univariate intervals. Notably, the method involving Mahalanobis distance stood out in terms of efficacy. CONTRIBUTIONS: Beyond presenting novel techniques, our research underscores the importance and potential of using multivariate approaches in clinical lab settings. The findings can guide better medical decision making, ensuring optimized allocation of healthcare resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.