Clinicians frequently must decide whether a patient's measurement reflects that of a healthy "normal" individual. Thus, the reference range is defined as the interval in which some proportion (frequently 95%) of measurements from a healthy population is expected to fall. One can estimate it from a single study or preferably from a meta-analysis of multiple studies to increase generalizability. This range differs from the confidence interval for the pooled mean and the prediction interval for a new study mean in a meta-analysis, which do not capture natural variation across healthy individuals. Methods for estimating the reference range from a meta-analysis of aggregate data that incorporates both within- and between-study variations were recently proposed. In this guide, we present 3 approaches for estimating the reference range: one frequentist, one Bayesian, and one empirical. Each method can be applied to either aggregate or individual-participant data meta-analysis, with the latter being the gold standard when available. We illustrate the application of these approaches to data from a previously published individual-participant data meta-analysis of studies measuring liver stiffness by transient elastography in healthy individuals between 2006 and 2016.
Keywords: meta-analysis; normative data; prediction interval; random effects; reference range.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.