We've been seeing some strange ranges here as well. While a "typical" FT4 range is somewhere around 0.8-1.8, I've recently seen one that topped out at 6 and another that topped out at 12 (TWELVE!). Both were verified by the posters.
I can only assume that too many hypers were having to be treated???!!! Okay, I'll pry my tongue out of my cheek now...
The only thing I can think of is that reference ranges are calculated by the lab based on all the testing they do, so hypo and hyper patients are included in the data. Then they usually make the assumption that about 2.5% of patients are hypo and similar for hyper, and draw the range limits accordingly, at plus and minus two standard deviations from the average.
Seems like that I recall something posted here recently about the reagent used in testing was resulting in higher Free T4 results, so maybe they are adjusting ranges for that reason. If that is the case, then when Red is tested, her Free T4 might run higher than previously, but that certainly doesn't seem to account for the huge increase in the upper range limit. I think I would ask how the need for a change was determined.
If hypo and hyper patients were both included in the data, wouldn't the bottom of the range lower at the same time as the top was rising?
The higher results due to the reagent were, I believe, 9% higher. Red's range went up by 50% on both ends. I'm kind of at a loss on how to deal with this. It just doesn't seem reasonable to calculate where someone is in a range when the upper limit Is 12 compared to the usual approximately 1.8.
"I think I would ask how the need for a change was determined." That's why we have you! We are asking! LOL
"If hypo and hyper patients were both included in the data, wouldn't the bottom of the range lower at the same time as the top was rising?"
I was just explaining my understanding of how ranges are established, and why they are so erroneous. If the new reagent caused 9% higher results, then you could expect the entire population of recent test data and ranges to be about 9% higher. But, what if they just incorporated all the new (higher) results in the old data base? The combined data would result in a greater standard deviation and thus a much wider reference range.
Further questions would be whether only the new reagent is being used by a given lab. Or do they still use some of the old reagent that might be left over? If using both, that would further exacerbate (I have been looking for a place to use that word for years) the variability in results and accordingly the reference range.
I really can't understand how a reagent supplier can get away with something like that anyway.
My latest lab sheet has the following notation: "The current lot of free T4 reagent available from the manufacturer produces results that are approximately 9% higher than previous reagent lots. Please interpret these results accordingly."
It is interesting that they tell you to interpret them accordingly and then don't tell you how to do that!
I think it is a conspiracy by Dr's to tell you how unreliable and useless the FT4 number is and that is why they must go back to the trusty TSH as it is so awesome to use! - just kidding
Sure blows a person who is trying to really document and track lab values against dosages and symptoms. Throws it for a loop.
I'm really starting to think this should go full circle back to the beginning. In the beginning a person was treated on symptoms and was given thyroid in increments until the symptoms went away. NO lab testing at all. I think if we went back to this a WHOLE lot of people will be treated and feeling MUCH, MUCH better.
Okay, it looks like reagent changes aren't a factor in lab ranges. I go by symptoms but my endo requested these labs prior to starting Armour. I asked for a TSI antibody test as well and TPOAb and TgAb were tested instead. I believe this is the third time i've asked for a TSI antibody test and another test shows up instead. Pfft! There seems to be some sort of conspiracy going on with QML pathology. They probably changed a few reference ranges for a laugh too. :)
Copyright 1994-2018MedHelp.All rights reserved. MedHelp is a division of Vitals Consumer Services, LLC.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.