Laboratory measurements used for safety assessments in clinical trials are subject to the limits of the used laboratory equipment. These limits determine the range of values which the equipment can accurately measure. When observations fall outside the measurable range, this creates a problem in estimating parameters of the normal distribution. It may be tempting to use methods of estimation that are easy to implement, however selecting an incorrect method may lead to biased estimates (under- or overestimation) and change the research outcomes, for example, incorrect result of two-sample test about means when comparing two populations or biased estimation of regression line. In this article, we consider the use of four methods: ignoring unmeasured observations, replacing unmeasured observations with a multiple of the limit, using a truncated normal distribution, and using a normal distribution with censored observations. To compare these methods we designed a simulation study and measured their accuracy in several different situations using relative error μ ̂ - μ μ $$ \frac{\hat{\mu}-\mu }{\mu } $$ , ratio σ ̂ σ $$ \frac{\hat{\sigma}}{\sigma } $$ , and mean square errors of both parameters. Based on the results of this simulation study, if the amount of observations outside of measurable range is below 40%, we recommend using a normal distribution with censored observations in practice. These recommendations should be incorporated into guidelines for good statistical practice. If the amount of observations outside of measurable range exceeds 40%, we advise not to use the data for any statistical analysis. To illustrate how the choice of method can affect the estimates, we applied the methods to real-life laboratory data.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics Masaryk University Faculty of Science Brno Czech Republic

Slovak Academy of Sciences Institute of Neuroimmunology Bratislava Slovakia

See more in PubMed

Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development , OECD Principles on Good Laboratory Practice (OECD Publishing, 1998).

Internatinal Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use , Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2), 2023.

The European Medicines Agency , ICH E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials—Scientific Guideline, 1998.

The European Medicines Agency , Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2), 2002.

The European Medicines Agency , Guideline on Missing Data in Confirmatory Clinical Trials, 2010.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration , Good Review Practice: Clinical Review of Investigational New Drug Applications, 2013.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration , Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics—Guidance for Industry, 2018.

Armbruster D. and Pry T., “Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection and Limit of Quantitation,” Clinical Biochemist Reviews 29, no. Suppl 1 (2008): S49–S52. PubMed PMC

Barwick V. and Prichard E., eds., Eurachem Guide: Terminology in Analytical Measurement—Introduction to VIM 3, 2011.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration , Bioanalytical Method Validation—Guidance for Industry, 2018.

The European Medicines Agency , ICH Guideline M10 on Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis, 2022.

European Food Safety Authority , “Management of Left‐Censored Data in Dietary Exposure Assessment of Chemical Substances,” EFSA Journal 8, no. 3 (2010): 1557.

Berger T., Hilgers R.‐D., and Heussen N., “Observations Below Multiple Lower Limits of Quantification: How to Estimate the Mean and Variance,” Biometrical Journal 61, no. 5 (2019): 1258–1269. PubMed

Croghan C. W. and Egeghy P. P., “Methods of Dealing With Values Below the Limit of Detection Using SAS,” In The Proceedings of the Southeast SAS Users Group, 2003.

Glass D. and Gray C., “Estimating Mean Exposures From Censored Data: Exposure to Benzene in the {Australian} Petroleum Industry,” Annals of Occupational Hygiene 45, no. 4 (2001): 275–282. PubMed

Hornung R. W. and Reed L. D., “Estimation of Average Concentration in the Presence of Nondetectable Values,” Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 5 (1990): 46–51.

Succop P., Clark S., Chen M., and Galke W., “Imputation of Data Values That Are Less Than a Detection Limit,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 1 (2004): 436–441. PubMed

Cohen A. C., “Simplified Estimators for the Normal Distribution When Samples Are Singly Censored or Truncated,” Technometrics 1, no. 3 (1959): 217–237.

Johnson N., Kotz S., and Balakrishnan N., Continuous Univariate Distributions, vol. 1 (USA: Wiley, 1994).

Givens G. H. and Hoeting J. A., “Optimization and Solving Nonlinear Equations,” in Computational Statistics (USA: John Wiley\& Sons Ltd, 2012), 21–57.

Pitini V., Arrigo C., Azzarello D., et al., “Serum Concentration of Cardiac Troponin T in Patients With Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Treated With Imatinib Is Predictive of Adverse Outcomes,” Blood 102 (2003): 3456–3457. PubMed

Sato Y., Taniguchi R., Yamada T., et al., “Measurement of Serum Concentrations of Cardiac Troponin T in Patients With Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Sensitive Non‐invasive Marker of Cardiac Disorder,” Journal of Internal Medicine 39, no. 4 (2000): 350. PubMed

Twerenbold R., Jaffe A., Reichlin T., Reiter M., and Mueller C., “High‐Sensitive Troponin T Measurements: What Do We Gain and What Are the Challenges?,” European Heart Journal 33, no. 5 (2012): 579–586. PubMed

Halaby R., Popma C., Cohen A., et al., “D‐Dimer Elevation and Adverse Outcomes,” Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 39 (2014): 55–59. PubMed PMC

Olson J. D., “D‐Dimer: An Overview of Hemostasis and Fibrinolysis, Assays, and Clinical Applications,” Advances in Clinical Chemistry 69 (2015): 1–46. PubMed

Cole L., “HCG, the Wonder of today's Science,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 10 (2012): 24. PubMed PMC

Szczerba A., Bialas P., Pieta P., and Jankowska A., “hCG—Related Molecules and Their Measurement,” Ginekologia Polska 87 (2016): 65–70. PubMed

Black S., Kushner I., and Samols D., “C‐Reactive Protein,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 (2004): 48487–48490. PubMed

Hoseok I. and Cho J.‐Y., “Lung Cancer Biomarkers,” Advances in Clinical Chemistry 72 (2015): 107–170. PubMed

Zwickey H. and Thompson B., “Immune Function Assessment,” in Textbook of Natural Medicine (USA: Elsevier, 2020), 157–165.

Barthélemy N. R., Saef B., Li Y., et al., “CSF Tau Phosphorylation Occupancies at T217 and T205 Represent Improved Biomarkers of Amyloid and Tau Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease,” Nature Aging 3 (2023): 391–401. PubMed PMC

Hanes J., Kovac A., Kvartsberg H., et al., “Evaluation of a Novel Immunoassay to Detect p‐Tau Thr217 in the CSF to Distinguish Alzheimer Disease From Other Dementias,” Neurology 95 (2020): e3026–e3035. PubMed PMC