Objective: A major limitation of current suicide research is the lack of power to identify robust correlates of suicidal thoughts or behavior. Variation in suicide risk assessment instruments used... Show moreObjective: A major limitation of current suicide research is the lack of power to identify robust correlates of suicidal thoughts or behavior. Variation in suicide risk assessment instruments used across cohorts may represent a limitation to pooling data in international consortia. Method: Here, we examine this issue through two approaches: (a) an extensive literature search on the reliability and concurrent validity of the most commonly used instruments and (b) by pooling data (N ∼ 6,000 participants) from cohorts from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Major Depressive Disorder and ENIGMA–Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviour working groups, to assess the concurrent validity of instruments currently used for assessing suicidal thoughts or behavior. Results: We observed moderate-to-high correlations between measures, consistent with the wide range (κ range: 0.15–0.97; r range: 0.21–0.94) reported in the literature. Two common multi-item instruments, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation were highly correlated with each other (r = 0.83). Sensitivity analyses identified sources of heterogeneity such as the time frame of the instrument and whether it relies on self-report or a clinical interview. Finally, construct-specific analyses suggest that suicide ideation items from common psychiatric questionnaires are most concordant with the suicide ideation construct of multi-item instruments. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that multi-item instruments provide valuable information on different aspects of suicidal thoughts or behavior but share a modest core factor with single suicidal ideation items. Retrospective, multisite collaborations including distinct instruments should be feasible provided they harmonize across instruments or focus on specific constructs of suicidality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Show less
Bernsen, M.R.; McDougald, W.; Mezzanotte, L.; Moran, C.M.; Tavares, A.; Weerd, L. van der 2022
Objectives: The aim of this study was to harmonize the criteria for the Bhattacharya indirect method Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet for reference intervals calculation to reduce between-user... Show moreObjectives: The aim of this study was to harmonize the criteria for the Bhattacharya indirect method Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet for reference intervals calculation to reduce between-user variability and use these criteria to calculate and evaluate reference intervals for eight analytes in two different years. Methods: Anonymized laboratory test results from outpatients were extracted from January 1st 2018 to December 31st 2019. To assure data quality, we examined the monthly results from an external quality control program. Reference intervals were determined by the Bhattacharya method with the St Vincent's hospital Spreadsheet firstly using original criteria and then using additional harmonized criteria defined in this study. Consensus reference intervals using the additional harmonized criteria were calculated as the mean of four users' lower and upper reference interval results. To further test the operation criteria and robustness of the obtained reference intervals, an external user validated the Spreadsheet procedure. Results: The extracted test results for all selected laboratory tests fulfilled the quality criteria and were included in the present study. Differences between users in calculated reference intervals were frequent when using the Spreadsheet. Therefore, additional criteria for the Spreadsheet were proposed and applied by independent users, such as: to set central bin as the mean of all the data, bin size as small as possible, at least three consecutive bins and a high proportion of bins within the curve. Conclusions: The proposed criteria contributed to the harmonization of reference interval calculation between users of the Bhattacharya indirect method Spreadsheet. Show less
Background: Standardized results for laboratory tests are particularly important when their interpretation depends on fixed medical practice guidelines or common reference intervals. The medical... Show moreBackground: Standardized results for laboratory tests are particularly important when their interpretation depends on fixed medical practice guidelines or common reference intervals. The medical laboratory community has developed a roadmap for an infrastructure to achieve standardized test results described in the International Organization for Standardization standard 17511:2020 In vitro diagnostic medical devices - Requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples. Among the challenges to implementing metrological traceability are the availability of fit-for-purpose matrix-based certified reference materials (CRMs) and requirements for regulatory review that differ among countries. A workshop in December 2021 focused on these two challenges and developed recommendations for improved practices. Discussion: The participants agreed that prioritization of measurands for standardization should be based on their impact on medical decisions in a clinical pathway. Ensuring that matrix-based CRMs are globally available for more measurands will enable fit-for-purpose calibration hierarchies for more laboratory tests. Regulation of laboratory tests is important to ensure safety and effectiveness for the populations served. Because regulations are country or region specific, manufacturers must submit recalibration changes intended to standardize results for regulatory review to all areas in which a measuring system is marketed. Recommendations: A standardization initiative requires collaboration and planning among all interested stakeholders. Global collaboration should be further developed for prioritization of measurands for standardization, and for coordinating the production and supply of CRMs worldwide. More uniform regulatory submission requirements are desirable when recalibration is implemented to achieve internationally standardized results. Show less
Quell, J.D.; Romisch-Margl, W.; Haid, M.; Krumsiek, J.; Skurk, T.; Halama, A.; ... ; Kastenmuller, G. 2019
Kit-based assays, such as AbsoluteIDQ(TM) p150, are widely used in large cohort studies and provide a standardized method to quantify blood concentrations of phosphatidylcholines (PCs). Many... Show moreKit-based assays, such as AbsoluteIDQ(TM) p150, are widely used in large cohort studies and provide a standardized method to quantify blood concentrations of phosphatidylcholines (PCs). Many disease-relevant associations of PCs were reported using this method. However, their interpretation is hampered by lack of functionally-relevant information on the detailed fatty acid side-chain compositions as only the total number of carbon atoms and double bonds is identified by the kit. To enable more substantiated interpretations, we characterized these PC sums using the side-chain resolving Lipidyzer(TM) platform, analyzing 223 samples in parallel to the AbsoluteIDQ(TM). Combining these datasets, we estimated the quantitative composition of PC sums and subsequently tested their replication in an independent cohort. We identified major constituents of 28 PC sums, revealing also various unexpected compositions. As an example, PC 16:0_22:5 accounted for more than 50% of the PC sum with in total 38 carbon atoms and 5 double bonds (PC aa 38:5). For 13 PC sums, we found relatively high abundances of odd-chain fatty acids. In conclusion, our study provides insights in PC compositions in human plasma, facilitating interpretation of existing epidemiological data sets and potentially enabling imputation of PC compositions for future meta-analyses of lipidomics data. Show less
Jansen, R.T.P.; Cobbaert, C.M.; Weykamp, C.; Thelen, M. 2018
