4.5 Article

Reference intervals for routine biochemical markers and body mass index: A study based on healthcare center database in northeastern Iran

期刊

IUBMB LIFE
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 390-397

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/iub.2437

关键词

biochemical markers; CLSI Ep28‐ A3 guidelines; primary healthcare center; reference intervals

资金

  1. National Institute for Medical Research Development [996504]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to obtain reference intervals for various biochemical markers using indirect methods, for reporting results in primary healthcare centers. Differences were observed in reference intervals for different age and sex groups, with higher values for aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and uric acid in males.
Age- and sex-specific reference intervals (RIs) for some biochemical tests may be useful for their interpretation, due to the variations in lifestyle and genetic, or ethnic factors. The aim of this study was to obtain RIs for some routine biochemical markers including a serum lipid profile, fasting blood glucose (FBG), aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST and ALT), uric acid, and body mass index (BMI) in subjects who attended primary healthcare centers. The large database of primary healthcare centers uses RIs to report results for children, adolescents, and young and old adults. RIs were obtained by using the indirect method, recommended by the CLSI Ep28-A3 guidelines. RIs for FBG, BMI, and serum lipid profile, including triglyceride, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in people aged 18 to 120 years, were obtained without age/sex segmentation. RIs for serum AST, ALT, and uric acid were obtained without age segmentation, though these RIs were higher in males than females. The RIs for AST, ALT, and uric acid were higher in men, while the RIs for the other variables were similar in both sexes. This is the first study reporting the use of indirect RIs for BMI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据