ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2021
Common Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Endocrine Tests.
Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting gut health: Probiotics as promising therapeutics in alcohol-related liver disease management.AIMS microbiology · 2025Review
- An Update on Advances in Hypopituitarism: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Current Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Determination of Ideal Factors for Early Adoption and Standardization of Metagenomic Next-generation Sequencing for Respiratory System Infections.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2024Article
- Neuroendocrine Influencers and Associated Factors That Shape Jaw Movement and Growth in Temporomandibular Joint Disorder Management: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiographic Evidence.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Pitfalls in the Diagnosis and Management of Hypercortisolism (Cushing Syndrome) in Humans; A Review of the Laboratory Medicine Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endocrine tests are the cornerstone of diagnosing multiple diseases that primary care physicians are frequently faced with. Some of these tests can be affected by situations that affect the proper interpretation, leading to incorrect diagnoses and unnecessary treatment, such as the interference of biotin with thyroid function test, falsely elevated prolactin values in presence of macroprolactinemia or falsely normal due to the "hook effect" in macroprolactinomas. Recognizing these situations is essential for the clinician to make an adequate interpretation of these tests as well as an accurate diagnosis that guarantees the best outcomes for the patient.
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.