[Results] hs-CRP halved before the scale moved much
hs-CRP halved before the scale moved much, logged the same way every week so the comparison is at least internally fair.
Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding out the assays were different.
Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What a board can usefully do is help you ask better questions of somebody who can.
My TSH moved and I spent a fortnight convinced I knew why. The repeat six weeks later was back in range and I had changed nothing.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Reference intervals are typically the central 95% of a reference population. By construction one person in twenty falls outside one on any given test without anything being wrong.
Repeat testing before acting is standard practice for a reason: regression to the mean does a lot of work on single outlying values.
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
[deleted]
This. Reference ranges are population intervals, not targets, and conflating them causes a lot of unnecessary alarm here.
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
lab reference ranges are not treatment targets
Identifying header cropped from the report above. Post the values, not the name and reference number.
Correction: that marker is reported in different units by different labs, which explains the tenfold difference you are seeing.
Not convinced by the attribution. Weight loss alone moves that marker and you have no way to separate the two.
baseline before you start is worth more than any later panel
ask whether the lab changed its assay between your two draws
Have you taken this to whoever ordered it?
Have you taken this to whoever ordered it?
Disagreeing with this bit: that change is confounded by the weight loss itself and cannot be attributed.
Why so many single values look alarming and turn out to be nothing.
A reference interval is built to contain about 95% of a healthy reference population, so one test in twenty falls outside one by construction. Add biological variation, assay imprecision, fasting state and time of day, and a genuinely stable person will produce occasional out-of-range results.
That is why repeat testing before acting is standard. Regression to the mean handles most of it. None of which means an out-of-range value should be ignored — it means it should be repeated and taken to somebody who can put it in context, which is emphatically not a ranked feed.
assay method matters, especially between different labs
Added ApoB to the panel after a thread here. It told me something the standard lipid panel had been hiding.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing. It answers a question the standard panel only gestures at.
Panicked about a single result, posted here, got told to repeat it, repeated it, and it was fine.
- 1lab reference ranges are not treatment targets8 comments in this branch · started by u/liver_enzyme_liz
- 2Reference intervals are typically the central 95% of a reference population.…6 comments in this branch · started by u/emil_okwuosa