ArticleSteroids2014
High variability in serum estradiol measurements in men and women.
Article in Steroids, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Management of gynecomastia in adolescence and adults: the clinical practice guidelines from the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS).Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2026Guideline
- Pooled it
- Establishment of harmonized international reference ranges for plasma estradiol concentrations in postmenopausal women.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Associations between waist-to-height ratio and hormonal-metabolic profiles in midlife women: evidence from a population-based cross-sectional study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Highly specific ID-UHPLC-MS/MS method for analyzing polar and non-polar steroid hormones.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Pharmacokinetic analysis of 25 mg estradiol subcutaneous bioabsorbable implant in postmenopausal women (CLARA STUDY).Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Accuracy-based proficiency testing for estradiol measurements.Clinical biochemistry · 2024Article
- Impact of Variation between Assays and Reference Intervals in the Diagnosis of Endocrine Disorders.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Case Report: Anastrozole as a monotherapy for pre-pubertal children with non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Oral estrogen leads to falsely low concentrations of estradiol in a common immunoassay.Endocrine connections · 2022Article
- [Testosterone replacement therapy and its relationship with hyperestrogenism and obesity. Problems of laboratory diagnostics of hyperestrogenism].Problemy endokrinologii · 2021Article
- Performance evaluation of Siemens Atellica enhanced estradiol assay.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Simultaneous measurement of total estradiol and testosterone in human serum by isotope dilution liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Evaluation of an Isotope Dilution HPLC Tandem Mass Spectrometry Candidate Reference Measurement Procedure for Total 17-β Estradiol in Human Serum.Analytical chemistry · 2016Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To reduce the variability in estradiol (E2) testing and to assure better patient care, standardization of E2 measurements has been recommended. This study aims to assess the accuracy and variability of E2 measurements performed by 11 routine immunological methods and 6 mass spectrometry methods using single donor serum materials and to compare the results to a reference method. The contribution of calibration bias, specificity or matrix effects, and imprecision on the overall variability of individual assays was evaluated. This study showed substantial variability in serum E2 measurements in samples from men and pre- and post-menopausal women. The mean bias across all samples, for each participant, ranged between -2.4% and 235%, with 3 participants having a mean bias of over 100%. The data suggest that calibration bias is the major contributor to the overall variability for nine assays. The analytical performances of most assays measuring E2 concentrations do not meet current needs in research and patient care. Three out of 17 assays would meet performance criteria derived from biological variability of ±12.5% bias at concentrations ≥20 pg/mL, and a maximum allowable bias of ±2.5 pg/mL at concentrations <20 pg/mL. The sensitivity differs highly between assays. Most assays are not able to measure E2 levels below 10 pg/mL. Standardization, specifically calibration to a common standard by using panels of individual patient samples, can reduce the observed variability and improve the utility of E2 levels in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.