- W Stuart A Smellie, consultant
- 1Clinical Laboratory, General Hospital, Bishop Auckland DL14 6AD
- Correspondence to: W S A Smellie info{at}smellie.com
- Accepted 9 November 2006
Laboratories see large differences in the use of tests to investigate subfertility. The use and interpretation of tests for the female sex hormones can be problematic; although population reference data exist, values change markedly within and between the different phases of the menstrual cycle, and values outside of quoted reference ranges often provide very limited information and can be misleading. This is particularly true for women with cycles that are irregular or atypical in length. Good examples of this can be seen in both menopause and subfertility.
Summary points
-
Hormone testing has very limited use in diagnosing the menopause
-
Monitoring patients on hormone replacement therapy relies on clinical response in most situations
-
Early investigation of subfertility is recommended only in specific groups of patients
-
A detailed menstrual history is essential to interpret gonadotrophin results
-
A luteal progesterone concentration above 20-30 nmol/l seven days before onset of menses effectively excludes endocrine related subfertility; intermediate concentrations may necessitate a repeat test
This paper presents two typical clinical cases involving biochemical investigation of female reproductive capacity and menopause and considers the further investigations that may or may not be helpful in these situations. It also presents a summary of the relevant researched guidance.
Case 1
A 47 year old woman with no gynaecological history apart from two uncomplicated term pregnancies in her 20s presented to her general practitioner with a three month history of tiredness, 2.5 kg weight gain, and low mood with occasional flushing. On questioning, she reported that she had had irregular and occasionally missed periods over the previous five months, and she had no specific features of an affective disorder. She had not had a period in the …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012