Martin I Surks1, Laura Boucai. 1. M.A.C.P., Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, New York 10467, USA. msurks@westnet.com
Abstract
CONTEXT: TSH reference limits, particularly the upper limit, are controversial. The traditional and prevailing method for setting limits uses TSH distribution of thyroid disease-free individuals. The curve is not Gaussian, but skewed to higher concentrations, even after log-transformation; values in the skewed area are assumed to reflect mild hypothyroidism. The underlying assumption for this traditional approach, which has not previously been tested, is that the limits derived from this curve are applicable to all people. However, recent studies suggest that distinct subpopulations have unique TSH distribution and reference limits that are significantly different from limits established by the traditional approach. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search was focused on articles that provide the basis for current recommendations for setting TSH reference limits as well as articles that suggest that the traditional method does not reflect accurately the TSH distribution and reference limits of distinct subpopulations within the United States. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: TSH distribution and reference limits shift to higher concentrations with age, even up to centenarians, and are unique for different racial/ethnic groups, being at higher concentrations in Caucasians than either Blacks or Hispanics originating from Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. The distribution curve derived by the traditional approach represents a composite of curves from specific subpopulations that do not provide appropriate reference limits for those unique groups. CONCLUSIONS: Age- and race-specific TSH distribution and reference limits, possibly influenced by genetic factors, should be employed to provide clinicians accurate limits for specific populations and guidance for further evaluation of thyroid dysfunction.
CONTEXT: TSH reference limits, particularly the upper limit, are controversial. The traditional and prevailing method for setting limits uses TSH distribution of thyroid disease-free individuals. The curve is not Gaussian, but skewed to higher concentrations, even after log-transformation; values in the skewed area are assumed to reflect mild hypothyroidism. The underlying assumption for this traditional approach, which has not previously been tested, is that the limits derived from this curve are applicable to all people. However, recent studies suggest that distinct subpopulations have unique TSH distribution and reference limits that are significantly different from limits established by the traditional approach. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search was focused on articles that provide the basis for current recommendations for setting TSH reference limits as well as articles that suggest that the traditional method does not reflect accurately the TSH distribution and reference limits of distinct subpopulations within the United States. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: TSH distribution and reference limits shift to higher concentrations with age, even up to centenarians, and are unique for different racial/ethnic groups, being at higher concentrations in Caucasians than either Blacks or Hispanics originating from Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. The distribution curve derived by the traditional approach represents a composite of curves from specific subpopulations that do not provide appropriate reference limits for those unique groups. CONCLUSIONS: Age- and race-specific TSH distribution and reference limits, possibly influenced by genetic factors, should be employed to provide clinicians accurate limits for specific populations and guidance for further evaluation of thyroid dysfunction.
Authors: Avantika C Waring; Alice M Arnold; Anne B Newman; Petra Bùzková; Calvin Hirsch; Anne R Cappola Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Mijin Kim; Tae Yong Kim; Soo Han Kim; Yunkyoung Lee; Su-yeon Park; Hyung-Don Kim; Hyemi Kwon; Yun Mi Choi; Eun Kyung Jang; Min Ji Jeon; Won Gu Kim; Young Kee Shong; Won Bae Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Daisy M Wopereis; Robert S Du Puy; Diana van Heemst; John P Walsh; Alexandra Bremner; Stephan J L Bakker; Douglas C Bauer; Anne R Cappola; Graziano Ceresini; Jean Degryse; Robin P F Dullaart; Martin Feller; Luigi Ferrucci; Carmen Floriani; Oscar H Franco; Massimo Iacoviello; Georgio Iervasi; Misa Imaizumi; J Wouter Jukema; Kay-Tee Khaw; Robert N Luben; Sabrina Molinaro; Matthias Nauck; Kushang V Patel; Robin P Peeters; Bruce M Psaty; Salman Razvi; Roger K Schindhelm; Natasja M van Schoor; David J Stott; Bert Vaes; Mark P J Vanderpump; Henry Völzke; Rudi G J Westendorp; Nicolas Rodondi; Christa M Cobbaert; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Wendy P J den Elzen Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Connie M Rhee; Steven Kim; Daniel L Gillen; Tolga Oztan; Jiaxi Wang; Rajnish Mehrotra; Sooraj Kuttykrishnan; Danh V Nguyen; Steven M Brunelli; Csaba P Kovesdy; Gregory A Brent; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Layal Chaker; Christine Baumgartner; Wendy P J den Elzen; Tinh-Hai Collet; M Arfan Ikram; Manuel R Blum; Abbas Dehghan; Christiane Drechsler; Robert N Luben; Marileen L P Portegies; Giorgio Iervasi; Marco Medici; David J Stott; Robin P Dullaart; Ian Ford; Alexandra Bremner; Anne B Newman; Christoph Wanner; José A Sgarbi; Marcus Dörr; W T Longstreth; Bruce M Psaty; Luigi Ferrucci; Rui M B Maciel; Rudi G Westendorp; J Wouter Jukema; Graziano Ceresini; Misa Imaizumi; Albert Hofman; Stephan J L Bakker; Jayne A Franklyn; Kay-Tee Khaw; Douglas C Bauer; John P Walsh; Salman Razvi; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Henry Völzke; Oscar H Franco; Anne R Cappola; Nicolas Rodondi; Robin P Peeters Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 5.958