This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Confirming post #30 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
For anyone finding this later: the short answer on building a sensible monitoring schedule is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.
I had written a reply contradicting post #28 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Repeat before acting is standard practice for an isolated abnormal result on most analytes, and it is standard for a reason.
Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Coming back to post #32, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
I disagree with the framing of building a sensible monitoring schedule above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
A trend needs at least three points to be a trend. Two points are a line and a line through noise is still a line.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
What would change my mind on building a sensible monitoring schedule is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Adding a reference point for building a sensible monitoring schedule. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Adding the measurement that post #41 says would settle it.
Practical answer on building a sensible monitoring schedule, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Where I part company with post #41, and it is a narrow parting.
Glycaemic markers integrate over different periods. A point glucose and a longer-term marker disagreeing is not a contradiction; it is two different questions.
Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
I would call the community position on building a sensible monitoring schedule likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
I had written a reply contradicting post #45 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Summarising the building a sensible monitoring schedule thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Confirming post #45 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A trend needs at least three points to be a trend. Two points are a line and a line through noise is still a line.
The reason building a sensible monitoring schedule is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Building a sensible monitoring schedule was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Glycaemic markers integrate over different periods. A point glucose and a longer-term marker disagreeing is not a contradiction; it is two different questions.