ArticleEndocrine connections2024
Confusion in the interpretation of prolactin levels caused by inappropriately low reference intervals.
Article in Endocrine connections, 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
- Review
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
Objective: Serum prolactin measurements are important in the differential diagnosis of pituitary masses and subfertility. We observed discrepancies in serum prolactin levels in several patients measured with different immunoassays. Despite differences in assay results, the reference intervals (RIs) derived by the manufacturers were similar. In this study, we aimed to investigate prolactin assay differences and to re-establish RIs for different prolactin immunoassays. Methods: For the assay comparison, serum samples were collected from men and women visiting the Amsterdam UMC hospital. Prolactin levels were measured using the AtellicaTM IM analyzer (Siemens Healthineers) and the Cobas (Roche Diagnostics) immunoassay. RIs for prolactin were re-established for men, premenopausal women, and postmenopausal women for both the Atellica and Cobas immunoassay. Results: Prolactin levels measured using the Cobas immunoassay were 1.75 times higher than those measured using the Atellica immunoassay. The re-established RIs for Atellica and Cobas confirmed these findings and were <0.32 U/L; <0.55 U/L for men; <0.64 U/L; <0.86 U/L for premenopausal women, and <0.31 U/L; <0.59 U/L for postmenopausal women, respectively, for Atellica and Cobas assays. The re-established RIs of the Atellica assay matched the current and manufacturer RIs, whereas those for Cobas differed substantially. Conclusions: Prolactin levels are assay-dependent, and the re-established RIs are different for the Atellica and Cobas assays. We recommend that laboratory specialists and manufacturers periodically review prolactin assay RIs, as incorrect RIs can lead to misinterpretation of prolactin levels and unnecessary referrals and further laboratory testing, as we have experienced. Plain language summary: We showed that the results of different prolactin tests disagree by 75%, which hinders correct interpretation. Thus, we established test-specific prolactin normal values. By being aware of test differences and using test-specific normal values, one can ensure correct interpretation and prevent unnecessary referrals and concern.
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.