Klee G G, Heser D W
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minn., USA.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 Jan;75 Suppl:S19-25.
In today's clinical and research settings, there is an unfortunate lack of consistency for the term "measuring testosterone status." This term is often used to refer to a measure of biologic androgen activity rather than the specific measurement of the chemical concentration of the testosterone steroid molecule. Even the measurements of chemical concentrations show considerable methodologic differences. This is true for measurements in elderly men, as well as in other populations, including women. All of the current methods for measuring total testosterone have limitations, especially with regard to low concentrations. In addition, unresolved questions concerning the active form of the hormone preclude definitive determination of which form of testosterone and which other androgen hormones are best suited for measuring androgen activity. When measurement techniques are compared, the numbers correlate with each other but certainly do not represent the same value. There is a need for a consensus as to which forms of hormones should be measured to best assess androgen status, and there is a need to standardize the procedures used to measure these hormones.
在当今的临床和研究环境中,“测量睾酮水平”这一术语存在令人遗憾的不一致性。该术语通常用于指代生物雄激素活性的一种测量,而非睾酮类固醇分子化学浓度的具体测量。即便化学浓度的测量也存在显著的方法学差异。这在老年男性以及包括女性在内的其他人群的测量中都是如此。目前所有测量总睾酮的方法都有局限性,尤其是在低浓度方面。此外,关于该激素活性形式的未解决问题妨碍了明确确定哪种形式的睾酮以及哪些其他雄激素最适合用于测量雄激素活性。当比较测量技术时,数值相互关联,但肯定并不代表相同的值。对于应测量哪些激素形式以最佳评估雄激素状态需要达成共识,并且需要对用于测量这些激素的程序进行标准化。