Abstract
Method-related variations in the measurement of hormones and the reference intervals used in the clinical laboratory can have a significant, but often under-appreciated, impact on the diagnosis and management of endocrine disorders. This variation in laboratory practice has the potential to lead to an errant approach to patient care and thus could cause harm. It may also be the source of confusion or result in excessive or inadequate investigation. It is important that laboratory professionals and clinicians know about these impacts, their sources, and how to detect and mitigate them when they do arise. In this review article, we describe the historical and scientific context from which inconsistency in the clinical laboratory arises. Examples from the published literature of the impact of the method, reference interval, and clinical decision threshold-related discordances on the assessment and monitoring of various endocrine disorders are discussed to illustrate the sources, causes, and effects of this variability. Its potential impact on the evaluation of growth hormone deficiency and excess, thyroid and parathyroid disorders, hyperandrogenism, hypogonadism, glucocorticoid excess and deficiency, and diabetes mellitus is elaborated. Strategies for assessment and mitigation of the discordance are discussed. The clinical laboratory has a responsibility to recognise and address these issues, and although a lot has been accomplished in this area already, there remains more to be done.