Abstract
Laboratory medicine plays a critical role in the modern healthcare system, and it is reported to influence 60–70% of clinical decision makings. The quantitative laboratory test results are interpreted by comparing to the Reference Intervals (RIs) and therefore the use of appropriate RIs is critical. Clinical laboratories in Bhutan have been randomly using RIs from textbooks and manufacturer’s package inserts without even verifying their applicability and therefore lessening their contribution to clinical decision makings. To improve the healthcare service delivery in Bhutan, this study aims to establish routine clinical chemistry and haematological test RIs for healthy adults in the Bhutanese population. Out of 1150 (male, n = 570; female, n = 580) healthy Bhutanese adults listed for the study through a simple random sampling technique, 1002 (male, n = 405; female, n = 597) individuals were assessed and 815 (male, n = 372; female, n = 443) individuals were enrolled in the study. An adequate volume of venous blood was drawn from these participants with the use of standard phlebotomy technique for clinical chemistry and haematological analysis. The laboratory data were analysed with the use of statistical methods recommended by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. After excluding the test results indicating underlying pathology and statistically detected outliers, a maximum of 775 (male, n = 346; female, n = 429) and 784 (male, n = 351; female, n = 433) individuals test values were eligible for clinical chemistry and haematology RIs establishment respectively. Statistically, there were no significant differences between age groups of same-sex for both test categories; however, significant differences between sex were observed for various test parameters in both test categories. Our RIs are generally comparable to other published literature. The established RIs are applicable to all the adult Bhutanese population; however, clinical laboratories should validate the transference of these RIs before using them for clinical purposes.
Introduction
Laboratory medicine has evolved as an integral part of the modern healthcare system. Laboratory test results play a critical role in clinical decision making by aiding in diagnosis, prognostication, patient management and preventive healthcare [1, 2]. The laboratory test results were reported to influence 60–70% of the clinical decisions thus indicating its cruciality in healthcare service delivery [3, 4]. The comparison is fundamental in any scientific discipline, likewise, quantitative laboratory test results are valuable only when they can be compared to the spread of values found in a health or disease. The Reference Intervals (RIs) are the most important tool used to interpret quantitative laboratory results; therefore, the quality of the RIs is as important as the quality of the test result itself [5–7]. The concept of the RIs was introduced in 1969 and its establishment processes were refined over the period [7, 8]. The concerned international organisations have recommended individual laboratories establish their own RIs based on the methods of analysis used and the population served; however, laboratories can alternatively validate and adopt the published RIs through the standard approach [9, 10]. Despite the clear directives, due to complex scientific procedures and financial difficulties involved, many clinical laboratories particularly in non-industrialised countries prefer not to establish their RIs [11–14]. In line with this trend, the clinical laboratories in Bhutan have been randomly using RIs from textbooks and manufacturer’s package inserts without even verifying their applicability. This potentially results in sub-optimal interpretation of laboratory test results and thus lessening its contribution to clinical decision making.
Bhutan is a landlocked kingdom in the eastern Himalayas sandwiched between China in the north and India in the south, west and east. It has an area of 38,394 km2 and a projected population of 727,145 (47.7% female) persons [15, 16]. All the healthcare centres in the country are owned by the government and currently, there are 289 healthcare centres (51 hospitals, 184 primary healthcare centres and 54 sub-post clinics) in the country [17]. The healthcare centres provide a range of clinical laboratory services as per the standard set by the Ministry of Health, Royal Government of Bhutan. Since the laboratory test results largely influence clinical decision makings, the improvement of clinical laboratory services in Bhutan through the establishment of RIs specific to the Bhutanese population can improve the quality of healthcare service delivery in Bhutan. Therefore, as per the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [18–22], this study aims to establish routine clinical chemistry and haematological test RIs for healthy adults in the Bhutanese population.
Materials and methods
Ethical considerations and selection of reference individuals
The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Board for Health (REBH), Ministry of Health, Bhutan. The samples were collected only after obtaining written informed consent from the participants. For illiterate participants, consent was gained by obtaining the participant’s thumbprint and the witness’s signature after reading and explaining the study information sheet and certificate of consent using appropriate language in the presence of a literate witness. As per the REBH requirement, optimal confidentiality was maintained to store all the information (demographic details, clinical details, and laboratory results) of the participants and made accessible only to the authorised persons. The study was carried out over 24 months (01-03-2020 to 28-02-2022).
The stratified random sampling technique was followed in this study. The Kingdom of Bhutan is officially divided into 20 Dzongkhags (districts) which are further divided into Gewogs (block) and Chiwogs (sub-blocks). For this research purpose, these Dzongkhags were classified into four categories based on the predominant ethnic population (Tshangla, Ngalop, Lhotshampa and Highlander). Dzongkhags with a highlander population were re-listed for selection. From each category, the Dzongkhags for sampling were selected based on the simple random sampling technique. Through this sampling process, Mongar, Pemagatshel, Lhuentshe, Trashigang and Trashiyangtshe Dzongkhags were selected for Tshangla ethnic category sampling. The Wangdue Phodrang, Gasa and Punakha Dzongkhags were selected for Ngalop ethnic category sampling. Sarpang, Tsirang and Samdrupjongkhar Dzongkhags were selected for Lhotshampa ethnic category. Similarly, Trashigang (Merak and Sakteng) and Gasa (Laya) Dzongkhags were selected for the highlander ethnic category. Once the Dzongkhags were selected, the healthcare centres in that Dzongkhag were listed and selected for sampling and the public registry of the selected healthcare centre is then used to select the reference individual through the same sampling technique. The participants were screened or examined with the use of pre-defined questionnaires and excluded from the study if they met any of the exclusion criteria (Table 1).
Table 1. Exclusion criteria.
The participants and blood samples were excluded from the study if they met any of the following criteria.
| S.no | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Abnormal body mass index: ≥30 kg/m2 or <18.5Kg/m2 |
| 2 | Acute or chronic infection (tuberculosis, malaria etc.) |
| 3 | Chronic liver or kidney disease |
| 4 | Alcoholism: ≥70g per day (equivalent to 5 alcoholic drinks) |
| 5 | Diabetes treated with oral therapy or insulin |
| 6 | Drug abuse and treatment for disease or suffering |
| 8 | Genetically determined risk |
| 9 | Hospitalized or seriously ill in the past 4 weeks |
| 10 | Hypertension |
| 11 | Known carrier of HBV, HCV, or HIV |
| 12 | On oral contraceptives |
| 13 | Neoplasms |
| 14 | Pregnancy or within one year after childbirth |
| 15 | Transfusion (blood or components) in the last 4 months |
| 16 | Organ donors and recipients |
| 17 | Skin rashes |
| 18 | Tobacco usage: greater than 20 pieces per day |
| 19 | Blood donation in the last 3 months |
| 20 | Breastfeeding |
| 21 | Participated in a research study involving investigational drugs in the past 12 weeks |
| 22 | Any other significant disease or ailment that an investigator feels may have an impact on the study’s findings. |
| 23 | Abnormal blood test results. |
| 24 | Specimen nonconformity (haemolysed sample, lipemic sample, clotted sample for whole blood or plasma analysis, inappropriate volume and wrong tubes or additives) |
Pre-analytical and analytical considerations
The participants were asked to continue their routine diet and activities and their samples were collected between 9 am– 5 pm. The participants were comfortably seated in a chair and blood samples were collected from the antecubital fossa with the use of the standard phlebotomy technique. From each participant, 10 ml of venous blood was drawn, and it was transferred to different tubes (K2EDTA, Sodium citrate, sodium fluoride and serum separator tube). The blood samples were gently mixed by inverting 8–10 times for thorough mixing of blood and anticoagulant or to activate clotting. The samples for clinical chemistry and Prothrombin Time (PT) analysis were allowed to sit for 30–40 minutes and then centrifuged at 3500 RPM for 5–10 minutes to obtain the serum or plasma. The samples were transported as soon as possible to the testing centre for analysis in a shipment box maintained at 2–8°C.
The Complete Blood Count (CBC, 24 parameters) analysis was performed with the use of Sysmex XS-1000i or XS-800i (Sysmex, Japan) and reagents from the same manufacturer. The PT testing was performed with the use of the HumaClot Pro fully automated coagulation analyser (Human, Diagnostics Worldwide) and Hemostat Thromboplastin-SI reagent or manually using the same reagent in the absence of coagulation analysers. The clinical chemistry analysis (20 parameters) was carried out with the use of a Mispa Nano Plus fully automatic clinical chemistry analyser (Agappe Diagnostics Limited, India) and reagents from the same manufacturer. All the clinical chemistry analyses were carried out at 37±0.1°C. The electrolyte analysis (3 parameters) was performed with the use of Elite Electrolyte Analyzer (Trivitron Healthcare, India). The principle of analyses of all test parameters is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The sample used and the principle of analysis of test parameters.
| S.no | Parameter | Sample | Principle of analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical chemistry | |||
| 1 | Alb | Serum | Bromocresol green method |
| 2 | TP | Serum | Direct biuret method |
| 3 | ALP | Serum | Kinetic method recommended by the IFCC |
| 4 | D-Bil | Serum | Diazo method |
| 5 | T-Bil | Serum | Modified TAB method |
| 6 | SGOT | Serum | Kinetic, IFCC method |
| 7 | SGPT | Serum | Kinetic, IFCC method |
| 8 | AMY | Serum | CNPG3 method |
| 9 | GGT | Serum | Szasz method |
| 10 | Ca | Serum | Modified arsenazo III method |
| 11 | Chol | Serum | CHOD-PAP method |
| 12 | TGL | Serum | GPO-TOPS method |
| 13 | Glu-r | Plasma | Hexokinase method |
| 14 | CK | Serum | Optimized IFCC method |
| 15 | Cr | Serum | Jaffe’s reaction, alkaline picrate method |
| 16 | Urea | Serum | Urease/GLDH method |
| 17 | LDH | Serum | Scandinavian recommended method |
| 18 | Mg | Serum | Xylidyl blue with ATCS method |
| 19 | PO4 | Serum | Phosphomolybdate method |
| 20 | Na | Serum | Indirect ISE method |
| 21 | K | Serum | Indirect ISE method |
| 22 | Cl | Serum | Indirect ISE method |
| 23 | UA | Serum | Uricase-PAP method |
| Haematology | |||
| 24 | CBC | Whole blood | • Hydro-Dynamic Focusing (DC detection) • Flow cytometry method (using a semiconductor laser) • SLS haemoglobin method |
| 25 | PT | Plasma | One-stage PT measurement |
The quality of all the laboratory analyses was ensured by running commercial Quality Control (QC) materials before the sample analysis and at pre-defined intervals. The precision and accuracy of CBC analysis were ensured by running e-CHECK (XS) QC materials (three-level) manufactured by Sysmex, Japan. Furthermore, the automated CBC results were correlated with blood smear findings at regular intervals. The quality of PT analysis was controlled with the use of Hemostat Control Plasma (two-level) manufactured by the Human, Germany. The quality of Clinical chemistry analysis was ensured by running a Qualicheck (two-level) QC material manufactured by Agappe, India.
Data analysis and reference intervals
The data were analysed with the use of Minitab 17 (17.1.0) statistical software package and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 365 MSO, Version 2111 Build 16.0.14701.20206). All the statistical analyses were performed at the significance level of 0.05. The data was primarily partitioned based on sex and furthermore classified into three sub-categories based on age (18–31, 32–45 and 46–60 years). The frequency histogram of all the parameters in each sex was visually inspected to get the general idea of the data distributions and outlier(s) presence. The outlier(s) were confirmed and excluded with the use of Dixon–Reed, Tukey, and Grubb’s tests. For each test parameter, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed between the sex and age group categories under each sex to determine whether there are significant differences among the means of the populations. Simultaneously, the means were compared for the difference using Tukey’s Pairwise Comparisons. The Anderson-Darling normality test was used for data normality testing. The RI for data with a Gaussian distribution is estimated with the use of a Gaussian percentile estimate (±1.96SD) and for non-Gaussian, the RI is estimated with the use of a non-parametric percentile estimate (2.5th and 97.5th values). In the non-parametric RI estimate, if the rank is not an integer, the precise limits were obtained by interpolating the two closest observations. Both RI estimation covers the central 95% of the reference values. The 90% confidence interval of the RI is calculated as per the CLSI and IFCC guidelines.
Results
Demographic profile
Out of 1150 (male, n = 570; female, n = 580), healthy Bhutanese adults listed as the reference individual, 1002 (87.13%; male, n = 405; female, n = 597) individuals turned up to participate in the study. After screening this population with the use of pre-set questionnaires, 815 (81.34%; male, n = 372; female, n = 443) individuals were selected for the study. After excluding laboratory results indicating underlying pathology and statistically detected outliers for each test parameter, the maximum of 775 (male, n = 346; female, n = 429) individuals’ clinical chemistry test values were eligible for RI establishment. Among the males, 32.95%, 37.00% and 30.06% of the individuals were within the age range of 18–31, 32–45 and 46–60 years respectively. Similarly in females, 36.83%, 39.16% and 24.01% of the individuals were within the age range of 18–31, 32–45 and 46–60 years respectively. The ethnic distribution, education level and occupation of the clinical chemistry reference sample group are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. The demographic details (ethnic distribution, education level and occupation) of the clinical chemistry and haematology reference sample group.
| Characteristic | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical chemistry | ||
| Ethnic | ||
| Tshangla | 112 (32.37%) | 138 (32.17%) |
| Ngalop | 102 (29.48%) | 121(28.21%) |
| Lhotshampa | 100 (28.90%) | 111 (25.87%) |
| Highlander | 32 (9.25%) | 59 (13.75%) |
| Haematology | ||
| Ethnic | ||
| Tshangla | 109 (31.05%) | 141 (32.56%) |
| Ngalop | 102 (29.06%) | 130 (30.02%) |
| Lhotshampa | 106 (30.20%) | 100 (23.09%) |
| Highlander | 34 (9.69%) | 62 (14.32%) |
| Clinical chemistry and haematology | ||
| Occupation | ||
| Farmers | 173 (49.29%) | 261 (60.28%) |
| Civil servant | 53 (15.10%) | 39 (9.01%) |
| Corporate employee | 10 (2.85%) | 12 (2.77%) |
| Business personnel | 35 (9.97%) | 36 (8.31%) |
| Students | 46 (13.11%) | 33 (7.62%) |
| Religious personnel | 14 (3.99%) | 5 (1.15%) |
| others | 20 (5.70%) | 47 (10.85%) |
| Clinical chemistry and haematology | ||
| Education level | ||
| Primary education | 65 (18.52%) | 57 (13.16%) |
| High school | 104 (29.63%) | 101 (23.33%) |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 22 (6.27%) | 21 (4.85%) |
| Others | 52 (14.81%) | 74 (17.09%) |
| Illiterate | 108 (30.77%) | 180 (41.57%) |
For haematology, a maximum of 784 (male, n = 351; female, n = 433) individuals’ test values were eligible for RI establishment. Among the males, 33.62%, 34.76% and 31.62% of the individuals were within the age range of 18–31, 32–45 and 46–60 years respectively. Similarly in females, 36.03%, 40.65% and 23.33% of the individuals were within the age range of 18–31, 32–45 and 46–60 years respectively. The ethnic distribution, education level and occupation of the haematology reference sample group are shown in Table 3.
Clinical chemistry RIs
The age range of individuals constituting the clinical chemistry reference sample group for both sexes was 18–60 years old. Within the same sex, there was no significant difference between the age group categories for all test parameters (Table 4).
Table 4. The statistical analysis of clinical chemistry reference values.
The table shows the p-value of one-way ANOVA between sex, age group categories under each sex and descriptive statistics for each clinical chemistry parameter.
| Parameters | Gender (n) | One-Way ANOVA (group A vs B vs C) | One-Way ANOVA (male vs female) |
Normality (Anderson-Darling) | Descriptive statistics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alb | male (n = 345) |
p value: 0.067 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 40.33 (95% CI: 39.85, 40.81) SD: 4.533 Range: 28.00–54.80 |
| female (n = 418) | p value: 0.092 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 39.11 (95% CI: 38.69, 39.51) SD: 4.229 Range: 30.00–50.70 |
||
| ALP | male (n = 334) |
p value: 0.447 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 1.56 (95% CI: 1.52, 1.61) SD: 0.411 Range: 0.66–2.72 |
| female (n = 414) | p value: 0.076 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 1.38 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.42) SD: 0.375 Range: 0.36–2.42 |
||
| Amy | male (n = 332) |
p value: 0.574 | p value: 0.063 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.88) SD: 0.254 Range: 0.31–1.59 |
| female (n = 408) | |||||
| D-Bil | male (n = 316) |
p value: 0.310 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 3.31 (95% CI: 3.17, 3.44) SD: 1.236 Range: 0.34–6.33 |
| female (n = 416) | p value: 0.097 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.72 (95% CI: 2.61, 2.82) SD: 1.082 Range: 0.34–6.00 |
||
| T-Bil | male (n = 319) |
p value: 0.310 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 14.53 (95% CI: 13.87, 15.19) SD: 5.992 Range: 5.13–30.78 |
| female (n = 404) | p value: 0.310 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 10.84 (95% CI: 10.39, 11.30) SD: 4.646 Range: 2.74–23.26 |
||
| Ca | male (n = 346) |
p value: 0.508 | p value: 0.001 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.22 (95% CI: 2.19, 2.24) SD: 0.214 Range:1.58–2.7 |
| female (n = 427) | p value: 0.099 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.17 (95% CI: 2.15, 2.19) SD: 0.211 Range:1.50–2.55 |
||
| Chol | male (n = 330) |
p value: 0.079 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.090 | Mean: 4.46 (95% CI: 4.36, 4.56) SD: 0.918 Range: 2.11–6.92 |
| female (n = 399) | p value: 0.105 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 4.07 (95% CI: 4.00, 4.15) SD: 0.802 Range: 2.16–6.50 |
||
| CK | male (n = 312) |
p value: 0.216 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.67 (95% CI: 2.55, 2.79) SD: 1.053 Range: 0.44–5.95 |
| female (n = 403) | p value: 0.507 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 1.96 (95% CI: 1.89, 2.03) SD: 0.726 Range: 0.49–4.05 |
||
| Cr | male (n = 339) |
p value: 0.232 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 89.65 (95% CI: 88.30, 90.98) SD: 12.541 Range: 51.27–120.22 |
| female (n = 380) | p value: 0.172 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 75.30 (95% CI: 74.50, 76.09) SD: 7.870 Range: 57.46–91.94 |
||
| GGT | male (n = 296) |
p value: 0.209 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.51) SD: 0.278 Range: 0.09–1.46 |
| female (n = 384) | p value: 0.108 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.33) SD: 0.147 Range: 0.09–0.85 |
||
| LDH | male (n = 323) |
p value: 0.107 | p value: 0.710 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 7.44 (95% CI: 7.34, 7.54) SD: 1.364 Range: 3.00–11.23 |
| Female (n = 414) |
p value: 0.153 | ||||
| Mg | male (n = 345) |
p value: 0.067 | p value: 0.056 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.91) SD: 0.315 Range: 0.13–1.85 |
| female (n = 424) |
p value: 0.951 | ||||
| PO4 | male (n = 341) |
p value: 0.744 | p value: 0.527 | p value: 0.056 | Mean: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02) SD: 0.175 Range: 0.49–1.49 |
| female (n = 413) |
p value: 0.120 | ||||
| SGOT | male (n = 305) |
p value: 0.068 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.55) SD: 0.134 Range: 0.17–0.88 |
| female (n = 392) | p value: 0.451 | p value: 0.016 | Mean: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.48) SD:0.101 Range: 0.22–0.75 |
||
| SGPT | male (n = 286) |
p value: 0.072 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.45) SD: 0.147 Range: 0.15–0.78 |
| female (n = 397) | p value: 0.071 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.33 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.34) SD: 0.108 Range: 0.12–0.63 |
||
| TGL | male (n = 323) |
p value: 0.056 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 1.71 (95% CI: 1.62, 1.80) SD: 0.819 Range: 0.11–4.25 |
| female (n = 408) |
p value: 0.082 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 1.36 (95% CI: 1.30, 1.42) SD: 0.652 Range: 0.10–3.15 |
||
| TP | male (n = 341) |
p value: 0.277 | p value: 0.940 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 68.96 (95% CI: 68.54, 69.34) SD: 5.950 Range:53.6–83.5 |
| female (n = 417) | p value: 0.228 | ||||
| UA | male (n = 336) |
p value: 0.538 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.33) SD: 0.084 Range: 0.10–0.54 |
| female (n = 417) | p value: 0.050 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.22 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.23) SD: 0.064 Range: 0.07–0.39 |
||
| Urea | male (n = 336) |
p value: 0.522 | p value: 0.001 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 3.63 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.74) SD: 1.001 Range: 1.18–6.33 |
| female (n = 413) | p value: 0.146 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 3.40 (95% CI: 3.30, 3.50) SD: 1.000 Range: 0.67–6.31 |
||
| Glu-r | male (n = 322) |
p value: 0.223 | p value: 0.009 | p value: 0.016 | Mean: 5.37 (95% CI: 5.28, 5.47) SD: 0.874 Range: 3.25–7.62 |
| female (n = 404) | p value: 0.887 | p value: 0.059 | Mean: 5.55 (95% CI: 5.46, 5.63) SD: 0.904 Range: 3.25–7.98 |
||
| Na | male (n = 304) |
p value: 0.439 | p value: 0.188 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 142.49 (95% CI: 142.29, 142.69) SD: 2.680 Range:135.00–148.00 |
| female (n = 391) | p value: 0.078 | ||||
| K | male (n = 294) |
p value: 0.413 | p value: 0.011 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 4.29 (95% CI: 4.24, 4.35) SD: 0.455 Range: 3.25–5.50 |
| female (n = 370) | p value: 0.114 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 4.19 (95% CI: 4.14, 4.25) SD: 0.539 Range: 3.00–5.70 |
||
| Cl | male (n = 308) |
p value: 0.093 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 105.39 (95% CI: 105.13, 105.66) SD: 2.340 Range:100.00–111.00 |
| female (n = 381) | p value: 0.418 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 107.00 (95% CI: 106.79, 107.21) SD: 2.080 Range:102.00–112.00 |
Abbreviations: Alb, Albumin; ALP, Alkaline phosphatase; AMY, Amylase; Ca, Calcium; Chol, Cholesterol; CK, Creatine kinase; Cl, Chloride; Cr, Creatinine; D-Bil, Direct bilirubin; GGT, Gamma-glutamyltransferase; Glu-r, Glucose random; K, potassium; LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase; Mg, Magnesium; Na, Sodium; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PO4, Phosphorus (inorganic); SGOT, Serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase; SGPT, Serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase; T-Bil, Total bilirubin; TGL, Triglycerides; TP, Total protein; UA, Uric acid.
However, between sex comparison showed an insignificant difference for only six test parameters (amylase, LDH, Mg, Po4, total protein and Na). The normality testing showed that only three parameters (cholesterol, male; glucose, female; phosphorus, both sex) reference values were normally distributed. The RIs of all test parameters for both sexes established either through the parametric or non-parametric method and the 90% CI of the reference limit is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. The clinical chemistry RIs of healthy Bhutanese adults, 90% CI of the reference limits and other published clinical chemistry RIs for comparison.
| Parameters | Gender | Present study- Bhutanese RIs (90% CI of RIs) | Indian RIs [25] | IFCC–Asian RIs [25] | Chinese RIs [25] | Tietz Textbook RIs [26] | NHANES RIs (Asia) [14] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alb (g/l) | male | 32.00 (31.00–33.00)– 48.04 (47.60–48.60) ‡ |
39–52 (<45 yrs) 37–49 (≥45 yrs) |
41–51 | 41–52 | 35–52 | 40–51 |
| female | 32.00 (31.00–32.00)- 47.65 (46.30–48.00) ‡ |
36–47 | 40–50 | 37–49 | |||
| ALP (μkat/l) | male | 0.89 (0.82–0.96)- 2.48 (2.41–2.62) ‡ |
0.68–1.89 | 0.66–1.63 | 0.85–2.11 | 0.90–2.18 | 0.65–1.79 |
| female | 0.69 (0.60–0.80)- 2.23(2.18–2.30) ‡ |
- | 0.54–1.43 | 0.66–1.63 (20–49 yrs) 0.88–2.16 (50–64 yrs) |
0.71–1.67 | 0.49–1.59 | |
| AMY (μkat/l) | male | 0.45 (0.40–0.49)- 1.48 (1.41–1.50) ‡ |
0.61–2.29 | 0.77–2.23 | 0.49–1.57 | 0.46–2.23 | - |
| female | 0.87–2.52 | - | |||||
| D-Bil (μmol/l) | male | 1.71 (1.71–1.71)- 5.48 (5.13–6.00) ‡ |
- | - | - | 0–3.4 | - |
| female | 1.54 (1.34–1.71)- 5.13 (5.13–5.13) ‡ |
- | - | - | - | ||
| T-Bil (μmol/l) | male | 5.64 (5.13–6.84)- 27.36 (27.36–30.10) ‡ |
6.2–23.7 | - | 7.1–28.8 | 5–21 | 6.8–27.4 |
| female | 4.96 (3.76–5.13)- 22.23(21.20–22.40) ‡ |
4–17.3 | - | 6.0–22.0 | 5.13–20.5 | ||
| Ca (mmol/l) | male | 1.79 (1.70–1.83)- 2.56 (2.53–2.63) ‡ |
2.10–2.44 | 2.21–2.49 | 2.16–2.48 | 2.15–2.50 | 2.20–2.53 |
| female | 1.75 (1.65–1.78) - 2.50 (2.50–2.52) ‡ |
2.18–2.45 | 2.15–2.50 | ||||
| Chol (mmol/l) | male | 2.66 (2.52–2.80)- 6.26 (6.12–6.40) † |
3.1–6.2 (<45 yrs) 2.5–6.7 (≥45 yrs) |
3.5–6.7 | 3.19–6.16 | 2.93–7.15 | 3.05–6.71 |
| female | 2.63 (2.60–2.70)- 5.88 (5.59–6.01) ‡ |
2.9–6.6 | 3.5–6.8 | 3.12–5.68 (20–49 yrs) 3.65–6.87 (50–64 yrs) |
3.08–7.77 | 3.29–7.20 | |
| CK (μkat/l) | male | 1.01 (0.88–1.23)- 5.19 (4.83–5.66) ‡ |
0.82–5.17 | 0.99–4.44 | 1.11–4.71 | 0.43–2.21 | 0.95–17.14 |
| female | 0.77 (0.61–0.90)- 3.53 (3.40–3.79) ‡ |
0.61–3.13 | 0.68–2.59 | 0.75–3.06 | 0.17–1.96 | 0.53–3.86 | |
| Cr (μmol/l) | male | 60.11 (54.81–68.07)- 114.92 (114.92–114.92) ‡ |
58–95 | 61–97 | 57–102 | 62–115 | 60–110 |
| female | 60.58 (59.23–61.88)- 88.40 (88.40–88.40) ‡ |
35–74 | 42–71 | 42–73 | 53–97 | 38–78 | |
| GGT (μkat/l) | male | 0.17 (0.15–0.19)- 1.21 (1.07–1.38) ‡ |
0.24–1.05 | 0.26–1.16 | 0.17–1.05 | 0.03–0.51 | 0.17–1.63 |
| female | 0.14 (0.13–0.14)- 0.68 (0.64–0.73) ‡ |
0.19–0.68 | 0.26–0.73 | 0.14–0.53 | 0.02–0.41 | 0.10–0.83 | |
| LDH (μkat/l) | male | 5.06 (4.82–5.24) - 10.50 (10.33–10.69) ‡ |
1.78–3.50 | 2.41–4.08 | 2.04–3.81 | 1.53–5.27 | 1.5–3.1 |
| female | 2.31–3.96 | 1.90–3.43 | 1.4–2.9 | ||||
| Mg (mmol/l) | male | 0.41 (0.39–0.42) - 1.23 (1.23–1.28) ‡ |
0.77–1.07 | - | 0.78–1.0 | 0.66–1.07 | - |
| female | - | - | |||||
| PO4 (mmol/l) | male/ female | 0.66 (0.64–0.67)– 1.34 (1.33–1.36) † |
0.80–1.43 | - | 0.84–1.48 | 0.87–1.45 | 0.90–1.55 |
| - | 0.87–1.62 | ||||||
| SGOT (μkat/l) | male | 0.31 (0.27–0.34) - 0.85 (0.83–0.87) ‡ |
0.34–0.90 | 0.28–0.60 | 0.27–0.66 | 0.14–0.34 | - |
| female | 0.27 (0.24–0.30) - 0.68 (0.66–0.70) ‡ |
0.29–0.66 | 0.24–0.50 | 0.24–0.58 | - | ||
| SGPT (μkat/l) | male | 0.21 (0.19–0.24) - 0.76 (0.73–0.78) ‡ |
0.26–1.26 | 0.24–0.92 | 0.17–1.00 | 0.22–0.68 | 0.20–1.29 |
| female | 0.17 (0.15–0.18)- 0.59 (0.55–0.61) ‡ |
0.17–0.63 | 0.19–0.53 | 0.10–0.58 | 0.17–0.48 | 0.17–0.79 | |
| TGL (mmol/l) | male | 0.60 (0.44–0.65)- 3.80 (3.39–4.25) ‡ |
0.6–2.7 | 0.5–2.8 | 0.53–3.43 | 0.42–3.23 | 0.45–5.88 |
| female | 0.44 (0.39–0.47)- 2.92 (2.78–3.04) ‡ |
0.5–2.1 | 0.4–1.7 | 0.46–2.28 | 0.44–2.62 | 0.40–5.23 |
|
| TP (g/l) | male/ female | 57.00 (56.00–57.00)- 80.00 (80.00–80.00) ‡ |
68–86 | - | 65–79 | 60–80 | 65–82 |
| - | 64–82 | ||||||
| UA (mmol/l) | male | 0.17 (0.15–0.20)- 0.52 (0.50–0.53) ‡ |
0.26–0.45 | 0.23–0.54 | |||
| female | 0.10 (0.09–0.12)- 0.37 (0.34–0.38) ‡ |
0.13–0.39 | 0.16–0.40 | ||||
| Urea (mmol/l) | male | 1.78 (1.67–2.03)- 5.95 (5.75–6.21) ‡ |
2.2–6.0 | 2.9–7.3 | 3.1–7.6 | 2.1–7.1 | - |
| female | 1.70 (1.50–1.86)- 5.51 (5.34–5.66) ‡ |
- | 2.6–6.8 | 2.4–6.4 (20–49 yrs) 3.0–7.7 (50–64 yrs) |
- | ||
| Glu-r (mmol/l) | male | 3.58 (3.36–3.96)- 7.41 (7.15–7.48) ‡ |
|||||
| female | 3.78 (3.65–3.90)- 7.32 (7.20–7.45) † |
||||||
| Na (mmol/l) | male/ female | 137.00 (137.00–138.00)- 147.00 (147.00–148.00) ‡ |
135–146 | 139–146 | 136–144 | 136–145 | 135–143 |
| 134–143 | |||||||
| K (mmol/l) | male | 3.44 (3.30–3.60)- 5.30 (5.20–5.40) ‡ |
3.8–5.0 | 3.7–4.7 | 3.7–4.7 | 3.5–5.1 | 3.4–4.7 |
| female | 3.20 (3.10–3.30)- 5.40 (5.40–5.50) ‡ |
3.3–4.6 | |||||
| Cl (mmol/l) | male | 100.73 (100.00–101.00)– 110.00 (109.00–111.00) ‡ |
102–113 | 101–108 | 101–109 | 98–107 | 98–108 |
| female | 102.00 (102.00–103.00)- 111.00 (110.00–111.00) ‡ |
Abbreviations: Alb, Albumin; ALP, Alkaline phosphatase; AMY, Amylase; Ca, Calcium; Chol, Cholesterol; CK, Creatine kinase; Cl, Chloride; Cr, Creatinine; D-Bil, Direct bilirubin; GGT, Gamma-glutamyltransferase; Glu-r, Glucose random; IFCC, International federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine; K, potassium; LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase; Mg, Magnesium; Na, Sodium; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PO4, Phosphorus (inorganic); RIs, Reference intervals, SGOT, Serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase; SGPT, Serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase; T-Bil, Total bilirubin; TGL, Triglycerides; TP, Total protein; UA, Uric acid. Symbols
‡, Non-parametric percentile estimate
†, Parametric percentile estimate.
Haematology RIs
The age range of individuals constituting the haematology reference sample group for both sexes was 18–60 years old. Within the same sex, there is no significant difference between the age group categories for all test parameters (Table 6).
Table 6. The statistical analysis of haematology reference values.
The table shows the p-value of one-way ANOVA between sex, age group categories under each sex and descriptive statistics for each haematology parameter.
| Parameters | Gender (n) | One-Way ANOVA (group A vs B vs C) | One-Way ANOVA (male vs female) | Normality (Anderson-Darling) | Descriptive statistics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TLC | male (n = 350) | p value: 0.585 | p value: 0.009 | p value: 0.110 | Mean: 6.59 (95% CI: 6.43, 6.75) SD: 1.517 Range: 3.00–11.00 |
| female (n = 427) | p value: 0.445 | p value: 0.009 | Mean: 6.87 (95% CI: 6.73, 7.02) SD: 1.547 Range: 3.37–11.09 |
||
| Neut (%) | male (n = 351) | p value: 0.084 | p value: 0.635 | p value: 0.118 | Mean: 56.18 (95% CI: 55.58, 56.79) SD: 8.596 Range: 31.40–78.30 |
| female (n = 427) | p value: 0.056 | ||||
| Lymph (%) | male (n = 351) | p value: 0.071 | p value: 0.064 | p value: 0.565 | Mean: 33.05 (95% CI: 32.53, 33.57) SD: 7.383 Range:12.70–52.50 |
| female (n = 425) | p value: 0.265 | ||||
| Mono (%) | male (n = 346) | p value: 0.376 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.099 | Mean: 7.25 (95% CI: 7.05, 7.45) SD: 1.896 Range: 2.60–12.30 |
| female (n = 428) | p value: 0.211 | p value: 0.027 | Mean: 6.56 (95% CI: 6.38, 6.74) SD: 1.891 Range: 1.00–12.00 |
||
| Eosi (%) | male (n = 335) | p value: 0.404 | p value: 0.092 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.81 (95% CI: 2.68, 2.94) SD: 1.818 Range: 0.00–8.10 |
| female (n = 412) | p value: 0.572 | ||||
| Baso (%) | male (n = 339) | p value: 0.637 | p value: 0.015 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.46 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.49) SD: 0.345 Range: 0.00–1.40 |
| female (n = 425) | p value: 0.986 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.43) SD: 0.324 Range: 0.00–1.30 |
||
| Neut # | male (n = 349) | p value: 0.305 | p value: 0.088 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 3.80 (95% CI: 3.72, 3.88) SD: 1.162 Range:1.45–7.17 |
| female (n = 425) | p value: 0.229 | ||||
| Lymph # | male (n = 345) | p value: 0.133 | p value: 0.000 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.09 (95% CI: 2.03, 2.15) SD: 0.556 Range: 0.77–3.49 |
| female (n = 427) | p value: 0.291 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 2.29 (95% CI: 2.24, 2.35) SD: 0.591 Range: 0.91–3.84 |
||
| Mono # | male (n = 338) | p value: 0.643 | p value: 0.191 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.45 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.46) SD: 0.149 Range: 0.04–0.86 |
| female (n = 425) | p value: 0.317 | ||||
| Eosi # | male (n = 335) | p value: 0.287 | p value: 0.589 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.19 (95% CI: 0.18, 0.20) SD: 0.128 Range:0.00–0.58 |
| female (n = 411) | p value: 0.425 | ||||
| Baso # | male (n = 348) | p value: 0.385 | p value: 0.002 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.03) SD: 0.026 Range: 0.00–0.11 |
| female (n = 417) | p value: 0.782 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.03) SD: 0.021 Range:0.00–0.08 |
||
| TRBC | male (n = 351) | p value: 0.165 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.506 | Mean: 5.35 (95% CI: 5.30, 5.40) SD: 0.434 Range: 4.2–6.54 |
| female (n = 430) | p value: 0.113 | p value: 0.112 | Mean: 4.77 (95% CI: 4.73, 4.81) SD: 0.414 Range: 3.60–5.94 |
||
| Hb | male (n = 352) | p value: 0.065 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.559 | Mean: 155.58 (95% CI: 154.19, 156.98) SD: 13.300 Range: 117.00–189.00 |
| female (n = 430) | p value: 0.600 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 136.14 (95% CI: 134.82, 137.45) SD: 13.860 Range: 101.00–168.00 |
||
| Hct | male (n = 349) | p value: 0.052 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.342 | Mean: 0.46 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.47) SD: 0.033 Range: 0.37–0.55 |
| female (n = 429) | p value: 0.078 | p value: 0.020 | Mean: 0.41 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.42) SD: 0.034 Range: 0.32–0.49 |
||
| MCV | male (n = 341) | p value: 0.516 | p value: 0.035 | p value: 0.521 | Mean: 86.99 (95% CI: 86.51, 87.47) SD: 4.485 Range: 74.20–98.20 |
| female (n = 415) | p value: 0.081 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 87.70 (95% CI: 87.25, 88.16) SD: 4.734 Range: 73.10–100.00 |
||
| MCH | male (n = 343) | p value: 0.970 | p value: 0.002 | p value: 0.482 | Mean: 29.30 (95% CI: 29.07, 29.53) SD: 2.121 Range: 23.80–34.50 |
| female (n = 421) | p value: 0.116 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 28.77 (95% CI: 28.54, 29.00) SD: 2.404 Range: 22.50–34.40 |
||
| MCHC | male (n = 347) | p value: 0.703 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.011 | Mean: 336.45 (95% CI: 335.04, 337.87) SD: 13.410 Range:303.00–370.00 |
| female (n = 433) | p value: 0.130 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 329.59 (95% CI: 328.16, 331.02) SD: 15.140 Range: 291.00–368.00 |
||
| RDW-CV | male (n = 294) | p value: 0.438 | p value: 0.054 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 13.07 (95% CI: 13.01, 13.13) SD: 0.790 Range:11.10–15.60 |
| female (n = 351) | p value: 0.742 | ||||
| RDW-SD | male (n = 299) | p value: 0.173 | p value: 0.029 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 40.30 (95% CI: 40.04, 40.56) SD: 2.306 Range: 34.90–46.50 |
| female (n = 355) | p value: 0.231 | p value: 0.033 | Mean: 40.69 (95% CI: 40.46, 40.93) SD: 2.267 Range: 34.60–46.60 |
||
| Platelet | male (n = 349) | p value: 0.372 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.486 | Mean: 249.16 (95% CI: 243.22, 255.11) SD: 56.500 Range: 97.00–404.00 |
| female (n = 425) | p value: 0.131 | p value: 0.042 | Mean: 266.48 (95% CI: 260.56, 272.40) SD: 62.070 Range:117.00–427.00 |
||
| PDW | male (n = 277) | p value: 0.866 | p value: 0.302 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 12.48 (95% CI: 12.29, 12.67) SD: 2.423 Range: 6.80–18.70 |
| female (n = 355) | p value: 0.823 | ||||
| MPV | male (n = 343) | p value: 0.843 | p value: 0.007 | p value: 0.477 | Mean: 10.65 (95% CI: 10.53, 10.77) SD: 1.149 Range: 7.60–13.40 |
| female (n = 429) | p value: 0.609 | p value: 0.260 | Mean: 10.88 (95% CI: 10.77, 11.00) SD: 1.230 Range:7.60–14.00 |
||
| PCT | male (n = 282) | p value: 0.482 | p value: 0.000 | p value: 0.067 | Mean: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.27) SD: 0.064 Range: 0.09–0.44 |
| female (n = 360) | p value: 0.129 | p value: 0.050 | Mean: 0.29 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.30) SD: 0.069 Range: 0.12–0.46 |
||
| P-LCR | male (n = 238) | p value: 0.812 | p value: 0.011 | p value: 0.022 | Mean: 32.04 (95% CI: 31.06, 33.01) SD: 7.644 Range: 16.30–51.20 |
| female (n = 304) | p value: 0.893 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 33.85 (95% CI: 32.88, 34.82) SD: 8.600 Range: 13.70–55.90 |
||
| PT | male (n = 341) | p value: 0.052 | p value: 0.660 | p value: <0.005 | Mean: 12.84 (95% CI: 12.76, 12.91) SD: 1.074 Range: 10.70–15.90 |
| female (n = 420) | p value: 0.150 |
Abbreviation: Baso, Basophil; Eosi, Eosinophil; Hb, Haemoglobin; Hct, Haematocrit; Lymph, Lymphocyte; MCH, Mean corpuscular haemoglobin; MCHC, Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration; MCV, Mean corpuscular volume; Mono, Monocyte; MPV, Mean platelet volume; Neut, Neutrophil; NHANES, National health and nutrition examination survey; PCT, Plateletcrit; PDW, Platelet distribution width; P-LCR, Platelet-large cell ratio; PT, Prothrombin time; RDW-SD, Red cell distribution width- standard deviation; RDW-CV, Red cell distribution width- coefficient of variation; TLC, Total leukocyte count; TRBC, Total red blood cell count; Symbols: #, Absolute count; %, Percentage.
However, between sex comparison showed an insignificant difference for only nine test parameters (neutrophil%, lymphocyte%, eosinophil%, neutrophil abs, monocyte abs, eosinophil abs, RDW-CV, PDW and PT). The normality testing showed that 36.59% of reference values were normally distributed. The RIs of all test parameters for both sexes established either through the parametric or non-parametric method and the 90% CI of the reference limit is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. The haematology RIs of healthy Bhutanese adults, 90% CI of the reference limits and other published haematology RIs for comparison.
| Parameters | Gender | Present study- Bhutanese RIs (90% CI of RIs) | Chinese RIs [34] | American RIs [34] | Malaysian RIs [34] | Dacie and Lewis RIs [37] | NHANES (Asia) RIs [14] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TLC (x109/l) | male | 3.62 (3.39–3.84)- 9.56 (9.34–9.80) † |
3.64–9.39 | 4.5–11.0 | 3.8–9.7 | 4.0–10.0 | 3.8–11.7 |
| female | 4.21 (4.01–4.31)- 10.29 (9.98–10.54) ‡ |
3.4–10.1 | 3.9–10.8 | ||||
| Neut (%) | male/ female | 39.33 (38.47–40.20)- 73.03 (72.16–73.89) † |
41.5–73.8 | 40–70 | 42.8–69.2 | 40–80 | 40.2–75.4 |
| 43.2–70.6 | 39.8–75.0 | ||||||
| Lymph (%) | male/ female | 18.58 (17.83–19.32)- 47.52 (46.78–48.27) † |
18.6–48.7 | 22–44 | 18.5–47.7 | 20–40 | 16.5–48.8 |
| 19.2–47.5 | 16.7–49.6 | ||||||
| Mono (%) | male | 3.53 (3.25–3.82)- 10.97 (10.68–11.25) † |
3.2–9.5 | 4–11 | - | 2–10 | 3.8–11.1 |
| female | 3.00 (2.39–3.08)- 10.43 (10.00–10.70) ‡ |
- | 3.3–10.6 | ||||
| Eosi (%) | male/ female | 0.40 (0.30–0.60)- 7.40 (7.10–7.60) ‡ |
0.4–8.1 | 0–8 | - | 1–6 | 0.7–8.9 |
| - | 0.6–8.3 | ||||||
| Baso (%) | male | 0.00 (0.00–0.00)- 1.20 (1.10–1.30) ‡ |
0.1–1.1 | 0–3 | - | <1–2% | 0.0–2.0 |
| female | 0.00 (0.00–0.00)- 1.10 (1.00–1.10) ‡ |
- | 0.1–1.8 | ||||
| Neut # (x109/l) | male/ female | 1.96 (1.81–2.06)- 6.50 (6.21–6.64) ‡ |
1.80–6.30 | 1.8–7.7 | 1.58–5.94 | 2.0–7.0 | - |
| 1.55–6.07 | - | ||||||
| Lymph # (x109/l) | male | 1.00 (1.00–1.26)- 3.29 (3.11–3.44) ‡ |
1.06–3.2 | 1.0–4.8 | 1.14–3.22 | 1.0–3.0 | - |
| female | 1.22 (1.08–1.37)- 3.62 (3.52–3.71) ‡ |
1.05–3.29 | - | ||||
| Mono # (x109/l) | male/ female | 0.19 (0.15–0.20)- 0.77 (0.75–0.80) ‡ |
0.16–0.62 | 0–0.8 | 0.15–0.67 | 0.2–1.0 | - |
| 0.1–0.74 | - | ||||||
| Eosi # (x109/l) | male/ female | 0.03 (0.02–0.03)- 0.52 (0.50–0.54) ‡ |
0.02–0.52 | 0–0.045 | 0.08–0.28 | 0.02–0.5 | - |
| 0.03–0.27 | - | ||||||
| Baso # (x109/l) | male | 0.00 (0.00–0.00)- 0.10 (0.09–0.10) ‡ |
0.00–0.06 | 0–0.2 | 0.01–0.05 | 0.02–0.1 | - |
| female | 0.00 (0.00–0.00)- 0.07 (0.07–0.08) ‡ |
0.01–0.05 | - | ||||
| TRBC (x1012/l) | male | 4.50 (4.43–4.56)- 6.20 (6.14–6.27) † |
4.28–5.81 | 4.5–5.9 | 4.18–6.06 | 4.5–5.5 | 4.06–5.97 |
| female | 3.96 (3.90–4.01)- 5.58 (5.53–5.64) † |
3.81–5.13 | 4.0–5.2 | 3.52–5.16 | 3.8–4.8 | 3.66–5.05 | |
| Hb (g/l) | male | 129.51 (127.52–131.50)- 181.65 (179.66–183.64) † |
133–175 | 135–175 | 120–165 | 130–170 | 122–169 |
| female | 106.00 (103.00–107.00)- 160.00 (158.00–163.00) ‡ |
115–152 | 120–160 | 98–138 | 120–150 | 105–149 | |
| Hct (l/l) | male | 0.40 (0.39–0.40)- 0.52 (0.52–0.53) † |
0.40–0.51 | 0.41–0.53 | 0.375–0.498 | 0.4–0.5 | 0.37–0.49 |
| female | 0.34 (0.34–0.35)- 0.48 (0.47–0.48) ‡ |
0.35–0.46 | 0.36–0.46 | 0.318–0.424 | 0.36–0.46 | 0.32–0.44 | |
| MCV (fl) | male | 78.20 (77.52–78.88)- 95.78 (95.10–96.46) † |
82.3–99.2 | 80–100 | 78.9–95.7 | 83–101 | 69.9–99.8 |
| female | 76.04 (74.00–78.20)- 96.00 (95.00–98.10) ‡ |
77.5–94.5 | 67.8–97.8 | ||||
| MCH (pg) | male | 25.14 (24.82–25.46)- 33.46 (33.14–33.78) † |
27.0–33.7 | - | 25.4–31.1 | 27–32 | 22.3–34.0 |
| female | 23.10 (23.00–23.90)- 33.10 (32.80–33.40) ‡ |
- | 24.8–31.2 | 22.1–33.8 | |||
| MCHC (g/l) | male | 309.00 (307.00–314.00)- 364.30 (362.00–368.00) ‡ |
316–354 | - | 306–348 | 315–345 | 318–360 |
| female | 303.85 (300.00–305.00)- 361.15 (358.00–362.00) ‡ |
- | 294–644 | 323–358 | |||
| RDW-CV (%) | male/ female | 11.80 (11.70–11.90)- 14.90 (14.80–15.00) ‡ |
12.0–13.6* | - | - | 11.6–14 | 11.4–14.6 |
| 12.1–14.3* | - | - | 11.3–15.7 | ||||
| RDW-SD (fl) | male | 36.10 (35.30–36.50)- 45.50 (44.90–46.40) ‡ |
37.1–45.7* | - | - | 39–46 | - |
| female | 36.38 (35.70–36.80)- 45.90 (45.10–46.10) ‡ |
38.2–49.2* | - | - | - | ||
| Platelet (x109/l) | male | 138.42 (129.92–146.92)- 359.90 (351.40–368.40) † |
127–350 | 150–350 | 167–376 | 150–410 | 152–325 |
| female | 151.30 (134.00–161.00)- 399.35 (384.00–410.00) ‡ |
158–410 | 139–370 | ||||
| PDW (fl) | male/ female | 8.10 (7.90–8.50)- 17.90 (17.30–18.10) ‡ |
10.1–16.1* | - | - | - | - |
| 9.9–15.4* | - | - | - | - | |||
| MPV (fl) | male | 8.40 (8.22–8.57)- 12.90 (12.73–13.08) † |
9.3–12.1* | - | - | - | 6.6–10 |
| female | 8.50 (8.30–8.64)- 13.29 (13.12–13.46) † |
9.1–11.9* | - | - | - | 6.8–10 | |
| PCT (%) | male | 0.13 (0.12–0.15)- 0.39 (0.37–0.40) † |
0.17–0.32* | - | - | - | - |
| female | 0.15 (0.14–0.16)- 0.43 (0.42–0.44) † |
0.18–0.39* | - | - | - | - | |
| P-LCR (%) | male | 18.20 (16.90–20.00)- 47.42 (46.70–49.80) ‡ |
18.5–42.3* | - | - | - | - |
| female | 19.46 (18.00–20.80)- 54.05 (50.60–54.90) ‡ |
17.5–42.3* | - | - | - | - | |
| PT (second) | male/ female | 11.00 (11.00–11.02)- 15.10 (15.00–15.20) ‡ |
- | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - |
Abbreviation: Baso, Basophil; Eosi, Eosinophil; Hb, Haemoglobin; Hct, Haematocrit; Lymph, Lymphocyte; MCH, Mean corpuscular haemoglobin; MCHC, Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration; MCV, Mean corpuscular volume; Mono, Monocyte; MPV, Mean platelet volume; Neut, Neutrophil; NHANES, National health and nutrition examination survey; PCT, Plateletcrit; PDW, Platelet distribution width; P-LCR, Platelet-large cell ratio; PT, Prothrombin time; RDW-SD, Red cell distribution width- standard deviation; RDW-CV, Red cell distribution width- coefficient of variation; TLC, Total leukocyte count; TRBC, Total red blood cell count; Symbols
‡, Non-parametric percentile estimate
†, Parametric percentile estimate
*, Reference intervals from reference no 36
#, Absolute count; %, Percentage.
Discussion
There is no literature on RIs of the Bhutanese population for clinical laboratory test parameters. The clinical laboratories in Bhutan have been using RIs from the standard textbooks without even verifying their applicability. Since the majority of the textbook RIs are established using western populations and clinical laboratories different from our setup, the use of textbook RIs is not appropriate. In this regard, the establishment of clinical chemistry and haematology RIs specific to the Bhutanese population has the potential to improve the quality of healthcare services in Bhutan. Initially, the international organizations recommended clinical laboratories establish their RIs; however, the recent literature on RIs recommends the use of common RIs if the population served is indifferent and the quality between the two laboratories is similar [5, 23, 24]. Since Bhutan is one of the least populated countries (∼19 persons per km2) [16] with the entire population falling under the broad classification of Asian descent, a common RIs for all Bhutanese ethnicities is suitable. Furthermore, common RIs for all clinical laboratories in Bhutan are appropriate because nearly all clinical laboratories have similar equipment, reagents, environmental conditions, and quality system as they are owned by the government. The most common way to partition clinical laboratory data is by age and sex and further adulthood can be divided into decades [6]. Following this trend, initially, we partitioned the reference sample group into male and female followed by a 13-years age grouping under each sex. In our study, there is no significant difference between sex for six clinical chemistry analytes (Amy, LD, Mg, Po4 and total protein). Similar findings of indifference between sex for these parameters are reported by several other studies [14, 25, 26]. Although these studies have reported significant differences among age group categories for several parameters, we observed no significant difference within age group categories for all test parameters in the Bhutanese population. The biological reason for this different observation remains unknown, but methodological differences in the age grouping between studies can contribute to this difference. Our RIs established for 23 Clinical chemistry parameters were comparable to various other published RIs [13, 14, 25, 27, 28]; however, the Bhutanese LDH RI is substantially higher on both limits compared to the RIs published for Asian descendent. The Bhutanese LDH RI is more comparable to the RI established in the African population [28–30]. Seventy-nine per cent of the Bhutanese population is involved in agriculture and livestock farming [31] and therefore subjected to constant physical strain and stress. Studies on the impact of exercise on Clinical chemistry parameters have reported that exercise significantly increases the serum LDH level [32, 33]. Consistent with these reports, the physically demanding life of the Bhutanese may be responsible for a higher level of serum LDH.
For haematology, we observed an insignificant difference between sex for 9 test parameters (nine CBC parameters and PT). The haematological difference between sexes was found to be variable in various populations [14, 34–37]. This variable between sexes may be due to the actual biological differences or differences in study design. In our study, many red cell series test parameters were found to be higher in males than females. Similar findings have been reported in other published literature. The higher RBC count and Hb level in males are suggested to be due to an effect of androgen and estrogen on erythropoiesis [35, 36, 38, 39]. The lower limit of our Hb level is lower than the limit (≥120 g/l) specified by the WHO for non-pregnant women [40]. The WHO has defined this limit in 1968 based on a few studies conducted on the European and American populations, yet this cut-off has been applied to all other populations across the globe [41]. Sex, ethnicity and physiological status are observed to influence the normal Hb level; therefore, new lower limits for Hb based on sex, ethnicity and age have been proposed [42]. Like our findings, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and other RI studies from Malaysia and Africa have reported lower limits lower than the WHO limit [14, 34]. Consistent with various published literature [43–46], we also observed a higher platelet count in females than in males. This difference is suggested to be due to the different hormonal profiles or compensation mechanisms associated with menstrual blood loss [47]. The platelet RI study conducted on the UK population by the Ali U et al reported that there is a significant difference in platelet indices RI between sexes [48]. Consistent with this finding, we also observed insignificant differences only for PDW; however, variable observations between sexes were also published [45, 49]. The leukocyte counts are reported to be higher in females than males and they reverse in old age [46, 50]. In agreement with this published literature, we observed a significantly higher total white cell count in females than males in healthy Bhutanese adults.
Conclusions
The RIs established through this study are applicable to all the Bhutanese population (adult) since representative samples from all the major ethnic groups have been obtained and all Bhutanese ethnic groups fall under the broad classification of Asian descent. The clinical laboratories however need to validate the transference of these RIs following the recommended procedures before using them for clinical purposes. Since the present RIs are based on healthy Bhutanese adults for routine clinical chemistry and haematological test parameters, RIs for specialised tests and other age groups must be established.
Limitation of the study
The study combined all the participants from diverse ethnic groups into one category to establish a common RI. Although all ethnic groups in Bhutan fall under the broad category of Asian descent, it is worthwhile to explore physiological differences among the ethnic groups in future studies.
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to the participants for their cooperation and sample contribution. We are also thankful to the technical advisor team for their valuable contributions.
Data Availability
Data cannot be shared publicly because the data belongs to the Ministry of Health, Royal Government of Bhutan. Data are available from the Research Ethics Board Of Health (REBH, Mistry of Health, https://www.moh.gov.bt/about/program-profiles/357-2/) via rebhscretary@gmail.com/ 02-322602/328091 ext-308 for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by the Quality Assurance and Standardization Division (QASD), Ministry of Health (MoH), Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB). https://www.moh.gov.bt/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Lippi G. Column in laboratory medicine. Annals of Translational Medicine. 2016;4(15):274. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.06.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Plebani M, Lippi G. Improving diagnosis and reducing diagnostic errors: the next frontier of laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(7):1117–1118. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2016-0217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sikaris K. Enhancing the Clinical Value of Medical Laboratory Testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2017;38(3):107–114. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Centre forCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. Strengthening Clinical Laboratories [Internet]. cdc.gov. 2018. [cited 23 June 2022]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/strengthening-clinical-labs.html. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jones G, Barker A. Reference Intervals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29 Suppl (i): S93–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sikaris K. Physiology and its importance for reference intervals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2014;35(1):3–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Higgins C. An Introduction to Reference Intervals (1)—Some Theoretical Considerations. Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology. 2012;11(1):2–5. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Henny J, Vassault A, Boursier G, Vukasovic I, Mesko Brguljan P, Lohmander M et al. Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(12):1893–1900. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2016-0793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ozarda Y, Higgins V, Adeli K. Verification of reference intervals in routine clinical laboratories: practical challenges and recommendations. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(1):30–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zeh C, Odhiambo C, Mills L. Laboratory Reference Intervals in Africa. In: Moschandreou T. E., editor. Blood Cell—An Overview of Studies in Hematology [Internet]. London: IntechOpen; 2012. [cited 2022 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/39110 doi: 10.5772/48250 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Xu P, Zhou Q, Xu J. Reference interval transference of common clinical biomarkers. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. 2021;81(4):264–271. doi: 10.1080/00365513.2021.1907858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Katayev A, Balciza C, Seccombe D. Establishing Reference Intervals for Clinical Laboratory Test Results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133(2):180–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bakan E, Polat H, Ozarda Y, Ozturk N, Baygutalp N, Umudum F et al. A reference interval study for common biochemical analytes in Eastern Turkey: a comparison of a reference population with laboratory data mining. Biochemia Medica. 2016;26(2):210–223. doi: 10.11613/BM.2016.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lim E, Miyamura J, J Chen J. Racial/Ethnic-Specific Reference Intervals for Common Laboratory Tests: A Comparison among Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and White. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2015;74(9):302–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gross National Happiness Commission. Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience (SPCR). Thimphu: Gross National Happiness Commission; 2017. p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- 16.National Statistics Bureau, Royal Government of Bhutan. 2017 Population & Housing Census of Bhutan, National Report. Thimphu: National Statistics Bureau of Bhutan; 2022. p. xv. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ministry of Health, Royal Government of Bhutan. Annual Health Bulletin 2021. Thimphu: HMIS and Research Section, Policy and Planning Division (PPD) Ministry of Health (MoH), Royal Government of Bhutan; 2021. p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Solberg H. Approved recommendation (1986) on the theory of reference values. Part 1. The concept of reference values. Clinica Chimica Acta. 1987;165(1):111–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.PetitClerc C, Solberg H. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory of reference values. Part 2. Selection of individuals for the production of reference values. Clinica Chimica Acta. 1987;170(2–3): S1–S11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Solberg H, Stamm D. IFCC recommendation: The theory of reference values. Part 4. Control of analytical variation in the production, transfer and application of reference values. Journal of Automatic Chemistry. 1991;13(5):231–234. doi: 10.1155/S146392469100038X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Solberg H. Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory of reference values. Part 5. Statistical treatment of collected reference values. Determination of reference limits. Clinica Chimica Acta. 1987;170(2–3): S13–S32. [Google Scholar]
- 22.CLSI. How to Define and Determine Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory; Approved Guideline. 2nd ed. CLSI guideline C28-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ceriotti F. Prerequisites for Use of Common Reference Intervals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2007; 28 (3):115–121. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ichihara K, Itoh Y, Lam C, Poon P, Kim J, Kyono H et al. Sources of Variation of Commonly Measured Serum Analytes in 6 Asian Cities and Consideration of Common Reference Intervals. Clin Chem. 2008;54(2):356–365. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.091843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shah S, Ichihara K, Dherai A, Ashavaid T. Reference intervals for 33 Clinical chemistry analytes in healthy Indian population: C-RIDL IFCC initiative. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(12):2093–2103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.A Burtis C, R Ashwood E. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Elsevier science; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ozarda Y, Ichihara K, Aslan D, Aybek H, Ari Z, Taneli F et al. A multicenter nationwide reference intervals study for common Clinical chemistry analytes in Turkey using Abbott analyzers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52(12):1823–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Dosoo D, Kayan K, Adu-Gyasi D, Kwara E, Ocran J, Osei-Kwakye K et al. Haematological and Clinical chemistry Reference Values for Healthy Adults in the Middle Belt of Ghana. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Karita E, Ketter N, Price M, Kayitenkore K, Kaleebu P, Nanvubya A et al. CLSI-Derived Hematology and Clinical chemistry Reference Intervals for Healthy Adults in Eastern and Southern Africa. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(2):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mekonnen Z, Amuamuta A, Mulu W, Yimer M, Zenebe Y, Adem Y et al. Clinical chemistry reference intervals of healthy adult populations in Gojjam Zones of Amhara National Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9):1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tobgay S. Agriculture Diversification in Bhutan. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, [Internet]. Thimphu; 2005. [cited 15 January 2022]. p. 4. Available from: http://file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/pp060709.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kumari A, Dalal D, Kumar R, Saha P, Dahiya K. Effect of Exercise in Clinical chemistry Parameters in Athletes. International Journal of Research and Review. 2018;5(3):101–105. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Rodrigues P, Wassmansdorf R, Macedo Salgueirosa F, Gabellone Hernandez S, Bertoli Nascimento V, Bobroff Daros L et al. Time-course of changes in indirect markers of muscle damage responses following a 130-km cycling race. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2016;18(3):322–331. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Wu X, Zhao M, Pan B, Zhang J, Peng M, Wang L et al. Complete Blood Count Reference Intervals for Healthy Han Chinese Adults. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Al-Mawali A, Pinto A, Al-Busaidi R, Al-Lawati R, Morsi M. Comprehensive haematological indices reference intervals for a healthy Omani population: First comprehensive study in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Middle Eastern countries based on age, gender and ABO blood group comparison. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pekelharing J, Hauss O, Jonge R, Lokhof J, Sodikromo J, Spaans M et al. Haematology reference intervals for established and novel parameters in healthy adults. Sysmex Journal International. 2010;20(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Lewis S, Bain B, Bates I. Dacie and Lewis practical haematology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Gachie R, Were T, Waithaka S, Muhoho N. Establishment of Haematological Reference Intervals for Adults and Adolescents in Nakuru County, Kenya. International Journal of Health Sciences. 2018;6(4):33–40. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Murphy W. The sex difference in haemoglobin levels in adults—Mechanisms, causes, and consequences. Blood Rev. 2014;28(2):41–47. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2013.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.World Health Organization. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity [Internet]. Apps.who.int. 2011. [cited 23 June 2022]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85839. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Addo O, Yu E, Williams A, Young M, Sharma A, Mei Z et al. Evaluation of Hemoglobin Cutoff Levels to Define Anemia Among Healthy Individuals. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(8):1–13. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.19123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Domenica Cappellini M, Motta I. Anemia in Clinical Practice—Definition and Classification: Does Hemoglobin Change with Aging? Semin Hematol. 2015;52(4):261–269. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2015.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Toryila J, Amadi K, Adelaiye A. Platelet counts and mean platelet volume amongst elderly Nigerians. Science World Journal. 2009;4(1):15–18. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Stevens R, Alexander M. A Sex Difference in the Platelet Count. Br J Haematol. 1977;37(2):295–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1977.tb06847.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Zhang J, Li M, He Y. Large Population Study for Age- and Gender-Related Variations of Platelet Indices in Southwest China Healthy Adults. Hematol Transfus Int J. 2015;1(4):108–114. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Ethnic Bain B. and sex differences in the total and differential white cell count and platelet count. J Clin Pathol. 1996;49(8):664–666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Butkiewicz A, Kemona H, Dymicka-Piekarska V, Matowicka-Karna J, Radziwon P, Lipska A. Platelet count, mean platelet volume and thrombocytopoietic indices in healthy women and men. Thromb Res. 2006;118(2):199–204. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2005.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Ali U, Gibbs R, Knight G, Tsitsikas D. Sex-divided reference intervals for mean platelet volume, platelet large cell ratio and plateletcrit using the Sysmex XN-10 automated haematology analyzer in a UK population. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2019;41(2):153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.htct.2018.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Pereira K, Carvalho J, Paniz C. Reference intervals of the platelet indexes in a healthy population in Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Hemtaol Transfus Cell Ther. 2019;41(2):187–189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.McGrath C, Hitchcock D, Assendelft O. Total White Blood Cell Counts for Persons Ages 1–74 Years with Differential Leukocyte Counts for Adults Ages 25–74 Years: The United States, 1971–75. Vital Health Stat 11. 1982. (220):1–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data cannot be shared publicly because the data belongs to the Ministry of Health, Royal Government of Bhutan. Data are available from the Research Ethics Board Of Health (REBH, Mistry of Health, https://www.moh.gov.bt/about/program-profiles/357-2/) via rebhscretary@gmail.com/ 02-322602/328091 ext-308 for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.