PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

Reference intervals of common clinical biochemistry analytes in young Nigerian adults.

  • Ojor Ayemoba,
  • Nathan Okeji,
  • Nurudeen Hussain,
  • Tahir Umar,
  • Anthony Ajemba-Life,
  • Terfa Kene,
  • Uchechukwu Edom,
  • Ikechukwu Ogueri,
  • Goodluck Nwagbara,
  • Inalegwu Ochai,
  • Usman Adekanye,
  • Ikenna Onoh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247672
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 3
p. e0247672

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundReference intervals are assessment tools for interpretation of clinical test results. These intervals describe the dispersion of test parameter values of apparently healthy persons in defined populations as health status indicators. Using reference intervals obtained and validated in populations outside the geographical region of derivation for medical decision-making may impact negatively on clinical interpretation and patient management. Many countries have established their reference values, current studies on these data for Nigeria are however scarce. Determination of clinical biochemistry reference intervals for young Nigerian adults which is of particular importance in routine clinical management and conduct of clinical trials in response to existing and emerging diseases will add significantly to the existing body of knowledge.ObjectiveThe objective was to establish reference intervals for 24biochemistry analytes among Nigerians aged 18 to 26 years.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study among 7,797 consenting male and female military applicants aged 18 to 26 years from 37 States of Nigeria. It was a total study among volunteers for military service. Blood samples were collected and subjected to serological testing for HIV-1 and 2, hepatitis-B, malaria, pregnancy and haematuria to restrict our study population to apparently healthy participants. Biochemical assays were performed on 6,169 participant samples that met the inclusion criteria. Generated data was entered into MS Excel® and exported into SPSS® software version 16 for analysis. Statistical tools used were frequencies, median, mid 95th percentile range with 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles as limits. Reference intervals were estimated using nonparametric methods. No intergender statistical comparison was made.ResultsComplete records were obtained for 6,169 eligible participants. Median values and associated reference intervals were similar in both genders.ConclusionThe findings from this study will help in clinical decision-making and play a significant role in supporting the current global rapid expansion of clinical trials in response to the urgent need for preventive and therapeutic solutions to existing and emerging diseases.