Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The reference change value, defined as RCV = 1.96 x 2(1/2) x(s(I)(2) +s A(2))(1/2), where s(I) is within-subject biological variation and s A is analytical variation, has been used for many years to take clinical decisions in patient monitoring. Furthermore, the index of individuality was defined as II = (s(I)(2) +s(A)(2))(1/2)/s(G) , where s(G) is the between-subject biological variation. This index has been simplified by later authors to s(I)/s(G) and has been used in monitoring situations to determine the utility of population-based reference intervals. Harris stated that when the index of individuality is lower than 0.6, the specific reference interval of the individual - when available - is better than the population-based reference interval. However, if a change within a patient is equivalent to the RCV applied for the significant difference between two measurements, the probability of detecting this change is only 50% (the same probability of missing it). Therefore, to obtain a higher probability of detecting a change by the RCV (e.g., 90%) the interpretation of the index of individuality has to be reconsidered. This contribution compares the power of the RCV to the use of cut-off points and population-based reference intervals. The benefits of the RCV compared to the distance to cut-off point or reference limit are also described in relation to the index of individuality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iglesias et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: