ArticleJournal of the Endocrine Society2024
Clinical Impact of New Reference Intervals for the Roche Prolactin II Immunoassay.
Article in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How to Define Success in Prolactinoma Treatment-A Systematic Review and Theoretical Framework.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Confusion in the interpretation of prolactin levels caused by inappropriately low reference intervals.Endocrine connections · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The Roche prolactin immunoassay is used throughout the world. It reports higher values than the Siemens immunoassay but the manufacturer-defined reference intervals are similar. Patient results are often above the Roche upper limit but within the Siemens interval, causing diagnostic confusion. Objective: Establish new reference intervals for the Roche and Siemens prolactin immunoassays. Methods: We established new reference intervals for the Roche and Siemens immunoassays using 374 specimens from healthy outpatients. We performed chart review for unnecessary testing and treatment for 298 patients in a 6-month period with at least 1 Roche prolactin value above the manufacturer-defined upper limit and below our new upper limit. Results: The new upper limit for the Roche assay was 37.8 ng/mL (females) and 22.8 ng/mL (males). The manufacturer-defined limits were 23.3 ng/mL and 15.2 ng/mL, respectively. New intervals for the Siemens assay matched the manufacturer. No cases of clinically significant pathophysiologic prolactin excess were identified in patients with values between the manufacturer-defined upper reference limit and our new Roche upper limit. Unnecessary further evaluation in these patients included 459 repeat prolactin measurements, 57 macroprolactin measurements, 39 magnetic resonance imaging studies, and 28 endocrine referrals. Eleven patients received dopamine agonists. The minimum cost of excess care using Medicare reimbursement rates was $34 134, with substantially higher amounts billed to patients and their insurance providers. Conclusion: Adoption of new upper reference limits for the Roche prolactin assay of 37.8 ng/mL (females) and 22.8 ng/mL (males) would not delay diagnosis or necessary intervention in patients with clinically significant pituitary tumors but would reduce unnecessary evaluation in patients without pathophysiologic prolactin excess.
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.