ArticleJournal of the Endocrine Society2026
Impacts of new sex- and age-specific TSH and FT4 reference ranges on thyroid status and metabolic disorder associations.
Article in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Context: Thyroid hormone levels vary by age, sex, and genetic background; yet most clinical reference ranges (RRs) do not account for these factors, potentially leading to misclassification of thyroid status and missed associations with metabolic disorders. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of newly established age- and sex-specific reference ranges for thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) on the prevalence of thyroid statuses and their associations with metabolic disorders. Methods: Cross-sectional observational studies were conducted, and we enrolled over 8000 participants who underwent thyroid status evaluation with Abbott and Siemens assay kits. We compared the prevalence of different thyroid statuses and corresponding metabolic disorders based on the new RRs with that based on the manufacturers' RRs. Results: New RRs significantly altered the prevalence of several thyroid statuses. Subclinical hypothyroidism increased in middle-aged individuals using Abbott kits but decreased in older individuals using Siemens kits. Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of TSH (SITSH, high FT4 with normal or elevated TSH) increased significantly with both kits when applying the new RRs. SITSH, defined by the new RRs, was significantly associated with increased risks of hypertension (Abbott: odds ratio [OR] 2.00; Siemens: OR 1.70) and diabetes (Abbott: OR 2.65; Siemens: OR 1.68), whereas no such associations were observed using the manufacturers' RRs. Conclusion: Age- and sex-specific RRs corrected the misclassification of thyroid status and uncovered a previously underdiagnosed group (SITSH) associated with cardiometabolic risks. These findings support the importance of new RRs for diagnostic accuracy and clinical risk stratification.
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.