 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Laboratory / October 2003URL for bloodwork levels?
I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I can find this? > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I > can find this? I general there are no standardized assays where one result from one assay can be translated into another result from another assay. This was undertaken with cholesterol in which national standards where set up but not in other assays. You have to interpret the lab result in relation to the printed normals for that lab test in which it was done. Age adjusted normals are also included in the report if there is any. Keep in mind that some results may be out of normal but may not reach any clinically relevant cutoffs. > > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > undertaken with cholesterol in which national standards where set up but not > in other assays. ??????? Please elaborate. MB > > > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > > > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MB I frequently get hormone bloodwork done to track my hypothalamic amenorrhaea, and I guess out of morbid curiosity, I want to compare my hormone levels to what is a *normal range* for each age. I know that all of my levels are "low", but I want detials of what is normal to see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my bloodwork specifics in sci.med Normals are lab specific/methodology specific. It's hard to compare apples to oranges. Hopefully you're getting all your blood work done at the same lab each time. The normals stated on your report are the normals your lab uses. Trying to compare your lab's normals to another lab's normals is not a productive exercise. The ranges will vary a little on either end, assuming the methodology is the same. If the methodology is different, then you can't compare. There are usually a few different methods marketed for each test on the market. It depends on which one your lab uses. Hope this helps. Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology (but used to do chemistry) > I frequently get hormone bloodwork done to track my hypothalamic > amenorrhaea, and I guess out of morbid curiosity, I want to compare my > hormone levels to what is a *normal range* for each age. I know that > all of my levels are "low", but I want detials of what is normal to > see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my > bloodwork specifics in sci.med Thanks! That's what I figured. I thought there may be some standards, like estrogen - mine hovers between 54 and 81. Most people hear that and wince. I know this is horribly low, as wih my free testosterone: 0.3 and progesterone 1.3 I was curious to see if there were any common references for different ages/stages of development. > Normals are lab specific/methodology specific. It's hard to compare > apples to oranges. Hopefully you're getting all your blood work done at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my > > bloodwork specifics in sci.med > I frequently get hormone bloodwork done to track my hypothalamic > amenorrhaea, and I guess out of morbid curiosity, I want to compare my > hormone levels to what is a *normal range* for each age. I know that > all of my levels are "low", but I want detials of what is normal to > see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my > bloodwork specifics in sci.med The best person to ask would be the person overseeing your treatment. Beware of sci.med - there's a lot of quacks & crackpots posing as medical people. MB > The best person to ask would be the person overseeing your treatment. > > Beware of sci.med - there's a lot of quacks & crackpots posing as medical > people. > > MB Unfortunately, my GP is a quack, which is why I have had to learn everything myself. I had to give him print-outs about leptin in relation to Hypothalamic amenorrhea, as he had never heard of it. I have entered a study at the University of Toronto with Doctors who specialize in this. > > The best person to ask would be the person overseeing your treatment. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have entered a study at the University of Toronto with Doctors who > specialize in this. Nice, I can tell you would make a very good patient for a doctor to have. I am glad I am not a doctor or a patient with your attitude. > > > The best person to ask would be the person overseeing your treatment. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nice, I can tell you would make a very good patient for a doctor to have. I > am glad I am not a doctor or a patient with your attitude. Yeah, it is always embarassing for a doctor to be taught something new about his own profession (ie: leptin ) by a high shcool drop out. I would hate to have a patient like me if I was too busy hitting the pharmaceuticals to be bothered to do my job properly. Concidering my hormone levels presented as that of an 8 year old girl and he said "Oh well, you're just one of those women who don't get thie periods, you're lucky" and closed my file - I figured somebody needed to be my doctor so it might as well be me. Come on, I think my "attitude" of wanting to learn because my doctor can't be bothered to practice medicine on anyone other than himself, is quite healthy and justified. Should I have just smiled and accepted what he said? I'm confused by your remark. > > > > The best person to ask would be the person overseeing your treatment. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Should I have just smiled and accepted what he said? I'm confused by > your remark. Anyone who knows anything about medicine knows that four years of med school does not enable any single doctor competent in diagnosing every disease and condition known to man. There are specialist even among specialties. It was not you who taught your doctor but a diagnosis made by another doctor who I can lay money on does not know everything about medicine. IF you think you can read on the net or any book and diagnosis yourself then you are not dealing in reality. It is not embarrassing to anyone as it is a known fact. Ask your specialist about treating one of your infections and they will say go see your GP. The GP was wrong in not getting a specialists opinion but after saying that many doctors are wrong on many diagnosis. Some diagnosis are tentative while others are definitive. It is a wait and see if anything changes so a more better diagnosis can be found. You also can get second opinions on anything you want. I have personally left a hospital AMA and then went directly to another larger hospital and had a completely different diagnosis on second opinion. Your parents should have known that. > > > > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > > > > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my > bloodwork specifics in sci.med Your results from the lab should come with a reference range on the report. If there is no reference range get your doctor to send the samples to another lab.  SignatureMike Collins UK Mikecheatherc@nulloakwellmount.freeserve.co.uk > > > > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > > > > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > see when I get clost to being back on track again. I posted my > bloodwork specifics in sci.med Don't want to get personal here so won't go into causes here from eating disorders to Sheehan's pituitary apoplexy but the "normal range" is an aid in separating the disease population in trying to diagnose conditions. The therapeutic range may be somewhat different. You want to have your symptoms relieved and as such it is a balancing act. That level might be skewed within the high or low end of the normal range if possible or even out of the normal range in cases of peripheral resistance. It is all highly specific to you. I'm not interested in having this diagnosed further, I know the diagnosis and cause. I just want to track my progress to see if my GnRh starts pulsing again. > > "Manky Badger" <mb@nospampleez.puritan.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<bmo996$o3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the normal range in cases of peripheral resistance. > It is all highly specific to you. > > > I'm looking for a website that can tell me what normal hormone levels > > > are for males and females for different ages. Does anyone know where I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MB The reason for this is proprietary manufacturers patens on technology and or antibodies and reagents used with each assay. They make money based on new technology or test methodologies so it goes without saying that the number they get as a single result will not match another manufacturers test result. They set there own range for that test and also test it with known disease conditions to look for clinical cutoff points in trying to separate disease from non disease conditions known as ROC characteristics. We actually put warnings on some tests such as PSA that we perform stating not to compare these results with other PSA manufacturers. As far as cholesterol, it was a national goal to have a uniform range based on laboratory assay standards. Your cholesterol number should have the same significance no matter which methodology is used i.e. a 200 would be considered high regardless of where you had it done. These are not normal ranges per say but clinical cutoff ranges as you can not get 20 people, measure their cholesterol and then say that is the normal range as it was in the past. They also used to have age adjusted cholesterol normal ranges but no more. > > > I general there are no standardized assays where one result from one > assay [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > points in trying to separate disease from non disease conditions known as > ROC characteristics. Well, within reason. One manufacturer providing a kit might give a result of, say, 150 plus or minus 10 for any given sample. the next manufacturer might give a result of 165 plus or minus 15. i.e. not THAT far apart. If any one kit or method is THAT far apart, chances are it won't sell. > > > > I general there are no standardized assays where one result from one > > assay [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > might give a result of 165 plus or minus 15. i.e. not THAT far apart. If any > one kit or method is THAT far apart, chances are it won't sell. It might not be that clinically significant as parallel studies might show i.e. F test or T test stats comparison. You have to look also in specificity or less cross reactivity. We have a problem with Troponins right now and want to change kits so it is not only the CV but you want a clean assay does not pick up junk. The horror story of the HCG in which a women had a hysterectomy because they thought it was cancer turned out to be artifact in heterophil antibodies in which a simple pregnancy screen would have shown. The kit now says "not for tumor marker". These are all problems of antibody specificity which is a separate issue of accuracy or variance. You would dump out for the most part an "accurate" most of the time kit for a more specific kit with the same precision. > As far as cholesterol, it was a national goal to have a uniform range based > on laboratory assay standards. Your cholesterol number should have the same > significance no matter which methodology is used i.e. a 200 would be > considered high regardless of where you had it done. A cholesterol of 200 only has meaning in those few benighted countries which do not use SI units. Always quote the units. SignatureMike Collins UK Mikecheatherc@nulloakwellmount.freeserve.co.uk > > As far as cholesterol, it was a national goal to have a uniform range > based [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Always quote the units. Here in the states cholesterol is standardized so most people don't even mention units LOL. The 200 was only an example I guess I would rather use 300 mg/dl or go be LDL. National testing programs have keep an eye on those not meeting the standards in terms of accuracy and CV. The bad instruments and devices with poor accuracy and CV have left the market by now and how all been shipped to GB. > > > As far as cholesterol, it was a national goal to have a uniform range > > based [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and devices with poor accuracy and CV have left the market by now and how > all been shipped to GB. Try comparing US proficiency testing schemes with British external quality assurance schemes and you will see the real truth of CV and accuracy comparisons. As an example a year or two ago Roche changed the calcium levels in their automated systems calibrator. The general response to this in British labs was to assess the calibrator value by comparison with other calibrators, controls and patient means and reject Roche's figure. The typical US response was to use Roche's figure in order to avoid poor performance in PT schemes even though they knew this would result in altered patient results. If you are in Medlab-L you should be able to find the thread on this subject in the archives. As for instruments I think you will find that many cholesterols in the US are measured by Roche (European company, Japanese instruments), Bayer (European company Japanese instruments) or Olympus (Japanese company Japanese instruments). The only case I can think of where substandard (as defined by FDA) tests were dumped on the world market was the recent problem with Abbott reagents some of which were withdrawn in the US but not outside the US. SignatureMike Collins UK Mikecheatherc@nulloakwellmount.freeserve.co.uk > Try comparing US proficiency testing schemes with British external quality > assurance schemes and you will see the real truth of CV and accuracy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you are in Medlab-L you should be able to find the thread on this subject > in the archives. Just funning with you guys (chuckle). We don't use Roche but vitros in chem and I am not on the L list but it sounds interesting as I also do not trust these manufacturers. > As for instruments I think you will find that many cholesterols in the US > are measured by Roche (European company, Japanese instruments), Bayer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > were dumped on the world market was the recent problem with Abbott reagents > some of which were withdrawn in the US but not outside the US. We use Abbott stuff here and it was very disappointing to us especially with the HBAG's. It now takes us 2 hours to do one of those compared to the short IMEX withdrawn. By the way I heard the US will try and change the SI international units to American Units through the United Nations. LOL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.