作者: Lam P. Ly , Gideon Sartorius , Laura Hull , Andrew Leung , Ronald S. Swerdloff
DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2265.2010.03804.X
关键词:
摘要: Summary Background As reference laboratory methods for measuring free testosterone (FT) by equilibrium dialysis (ED) are laborious, costly and nonautomatable, FT levels often calculated (cFT) rather than measured. However, the predictive accuracy of such estimates in routine use relative to measurements is not well defined. We provide a large-scale evaluation different formulae compared with ED measurement an analysis clinical factors that may influence accuracy. Methods The five cFT (two binding, three empirical) based on immunoassays total (TT) SHBG was evaluated comparing those 2159 serum samples from men at single research over several years. Results show systematic discrepancies two equilibrium-binding formulae. One empirical formula overestimated measurements, whereas newer were more concordant. These persisted after correction albumin influenced obesity, ethnicity or gonadal status. Conclusions Commonly used significantly overestimate male samples. albumin, status. Such inaccuracy method renders some unreliable evaluating androgen deficiency as recommended best practice guidelines.