Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLivingston, Mark
dc.contributor.authorDownie, Paul
dc.contributor.authorHackett, Geoff
dc.contributor.authorMarrington, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorHeald, Adrian
dc.contributor.authorRamachandran, Sudarshan
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-14T10:21:01Z
dc.date.available2023-09-14T10:21:01Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-02
dc.identifier.citationLivingston M, Downie P, Hackett G, Marrington R, Heald A, Ramachandran S. An audit of the measurement and reporting of male testosterone levels in UK clinical biochemistry laboratories. Int J Clin Pract. 2020 Nov;74(11):e13607.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1368-5031
dc.identifier.eissn1742-1241
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ijcp.13607
dc.identifier.pmid32649008
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/2163
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: A number of guidance documents have been published in recent years for the diagnosis and management of hypogonadism (HG). Laboratory practice has a major role in supporting guidelines with accurate and precise serum total testosterone (TT) methods and standardised pre- and post-analytical protocols. Our study investigated whether laboratory practice currently supports the management guidelines for HG. Methods: An internet-based questionnaire survey of senior laboratory biochemists (UK/Republic of Ireland) was conducted (April-May 2018). Questions reflected sampling, laboratory practice, reference ranges and reporting of results. The results were analysed in conjunction with data obtained from the UK National External Quality Assurance Service (UK NEQAS) on testosterone assay performance. Results: Analyses of 96 laboratory surveys returned the following: 74 laboratories stated that the optimal sampling time was communicated to users; 81 laboratories used immunoassays; 76 laboratories included reference ranges for adult men (31 had dual/multiple age-related intervals). Wide variability in lower/upper limits was evident in the common immunoassays; the majority of reference ranges were from manufacturers (50.0%) or historical (18.8%). Action limits based on TT levels were used by 64 laboratories, but 63 did not report a borderline range as suggested by the guidelines. Protocols for cascading tests based on TT were evident in 58 laboratories, with 50 laboratories offering estimated free testosterone; interpretative comments were provided by 67 laboratories, but no references were made to the management guidelines. Data from UK NEQAS demonstrated considerable variation in testosterone assay performance. Conclusions: Our survey has highlighted inconsistencies that could lead to HG (and other conditions requiring measurement of TT) not being managed appropriately. The results from this survey and from UK NEQAS reinforce the requirement for action to be considered regarding the standardisation of testosterone assays and harmonisation of laboratory practice.en_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rights© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.subjectOncology. Pathology.en_US
dc.titleAn audit of the measurement and reporting of male testosterone levels in UK clinical biochemistry laboratoriesen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleInternational Journal of Clinical Practice
dc.source.endpage
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorLivingston, Mark
dc.contributor.departmentClinical Biochemistry, Black Country Pathology Servicesen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationWalsall Healthcare NHS Trust; The University of Wolverhampton; University of Manchester; Bristol Royal Infirmary; Aston University; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Salford Royal Hospital; University Hospitals of North Midlands; Keele University; Staffordshire University; Brunel University Londonen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record