ReviewJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM2025
Interpretating Normal Values and Reference Ranges for Laboratory Tests.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thiamine Deficiency in Hospitalized Veterans Without Alcohol Use Disorder: Prevalence, Biomarker Assessment, and Clinical Characteristics.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cohort profile of the first 2,000 canine enrolees in the Mars Petcare Biobank: demographic, hematologic and serum biochemistry results from March 2022 to December 2024.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Research on the Social Context of Medicine and the Modern Family Physician.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.