ReviewThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2021
Improving Science by Overcoming Laboratory Pitfalls With Hormone Measurements.
Review in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of gender-affirming hormones on diurnal cortisol concentrations: A prospective study.Neurobiology of stress · 2025Article
- EndoCompass Project: Endocrine Laboratory Medicine.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2025Review
- Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted.Head and neck pathology · 2024Article
- Selection of appropriate biomarkers to monitor effectiveness of ovarian function suppression in pre-menopausal patients with ER+ breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2024Review
- Serum Cortisol as a Biomarker of Severe Dengue.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Association of sex steroid hormones and new bone formation rate after iliac onlay grafting: a prospective clinical pilot study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite all the effort taken, there is often surprisingly little attention paid to the hormone analyses involved in research studies. Thinking carefully about the quality of the hormone measurements in these studies is, however, of major importance, as this attention to methods may prevent false conclusions and inappropriate follow-up studies. We discuss issues regarding hormone measurements that one should consider, ideally prior to starting, or otherwise, as they arise during a scientific study: quality of the technique, expertise, matrices, timing and storage conditions, freeze-thaw cycles, lot-to-lot and day-to-day variation, analyses per batch or sample-wise, singlicate or duplicate measurements, combining methods, and standardization. This article and the examples mentioned herein aim to clarify the need to pay attention to the hormone analyses, and to help in making decisions. In addition, these examples help editors and reviewers of scientific journals to pay attention to the methods section in the submitted manuscripts and ask the right critical questions when needed.
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.