Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40268322›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM2025

Interpretating Normal Values and Reference Ranges for Laboratory Tests.

Nancy Doles, May Ye Mon, Arika Shaikh, Samantha Mitchell, Disha Patel, Dean Seehusen, Gurmukh Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Research on the Social Context of Medicine and the Modern Family Physician.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nancy DolesFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
May Ye MonFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
Arika ShaikhFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
Samantha MitchellFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
Disha PatelFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
Dean SeehusenFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM).
Gurmukh SinghFrom the Department of Family Medicine (ND, AS, SM, DP, DS); Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, GA (MYM). gurmukhsinghmdphd@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory test results drive about 70% of clinical decisions and are important in making diagnosis, prognosis, ruling out conditions, testing for propensity to disease and monitoring the course of illnesses. The requirement for releasing laboratory results to patients has altered the dynamics of doctor patient interaction. Minor variations in laboratory test results that are labeled by the laboratory as low/high/abnormal may cause unwarranted worry to the patients. The number of laboratory results that are outside the "normal range" far exceeds the clinically meaningful abnormal results due to the usually accepted methodology for ascertaining "normal values"/reference ranges, variations in methods of testing at different laboratories, variations due to age, gender, ethnicity, seasonality, and random variations. The usual process for establishing "normal values/reference ranges" entails testing at least 120 healthy individuals in a given age-group, gender, ethnicity, testing method and related health issues. The central 95% of the values is usually adopted as the normal range. This practice, by definition, labels 5% of healthy individuals as having abnormal laboratory results. This review addresses various issues that affect laboratory test results and interpretation of such results. It also addresses doctor and patient concerns about assessing and reporting laboratory results. In addition to reporting normal values along with patient results, it may be useful to include clinical significance of the findings, in simple terms, such as, no immediate concern, warrants discussion with doctor at the next visit, recommend contacting your doctor for further action.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansReference ValuesCommunicationComprehensive Metabolic PanelDoctor Patient RelationsFamily MedicineHealth CommunicationLaboratory Alert ValuesMedical Decision-MakingPatient PortalsReference Ranges

Identifiers

PMID40268322
PMCPMC12096374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.