What is in a men’s lab panel

The comparison this page cannot draw, and the one it can

Start with what is missing, because it is the more useful half. A lab panel comparison ought to be a grid: providers across the top, analytes down the side, ticks in the cells. Drawing it needs a list of what each panel contains. This site holds 3 providers in its blood-work category, and between them our records name 7 panels, carry 3 prices and disclose zero analyte contents. The grid cannot be drawn from what we hold, and it will not be rebuilt from marketing pages — a table of ticks assembled that way looks exactly like a table of ticks that was sourced, and a reader has no way to tell them apart. Part of that is a gap in our own records rather than in the market, so every row below carries the date we last reviewed it.

The second missing half is the "should". No source we opened states what a general men's health panel ought to contain — no guideline, no professional body, no trial. One guideline states what to measure for one specific question, and it is quoted in full below. It is worth reading for its shape as much as its content: to answer that question thoroughly it names about four analytes. "We recommend measuring fasting morning total T concentrations using an accurate and reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test." Then "We recommend confirming the diagnosis by repeating the measurement of morning fasting total T concentrations." Then, conditionally, "In men whose total T is near the lower limit of normal or who have a condition that alters sex hormone-binding globulin, we recommend obtaining a free T concentration using either equilibrium dialysis or estimating it using an accurate formula." And on treatment: "Clinicians should monitor men receiving T therapy using a standardized plan that includes: evaluating symptoms, adverse effects, and compliance; measuring serum T and hematocrit concentrations; and evaluating prostate cancer risk during the first year after initiating T therapy." Assembling the rest of a panel from what is commonly sold would be inventing a recommendation and attributing it to nobody, so this page publishes none.

Which leaves the comparison that can be made, and it is the one nobody selling a panel puts on the page. A panel sells you numbers. Before buying one it is worth asking what each number will be read against when it comes back. This site already did that work for its printable reference sheet and the answer was unforgiving: of the analytes on a typical men's chart, four could be printed with a named population and a named assay and eight were refused. Extend the same test across the 18 analytes here and 5 have a sourced figure of any kind — and of those, exactly 1 is a reference interval in the proper sense.

That one is total testosterone, at 264–916 ng/dL (9.2–31.8 nmol/L), from Travison 2017, healthy nonobese men 19–39, CDC-calibrated assay. The others that carry a number carry a different kind of number entirely. HbA1c's 5.7% and 6.5% are lines NIDDK publishes in a table headed "Diagnosis". The LDL bands are classification boundaries from a paper about an estimating equation, and the US and European lists do not agree with each other. The KDIGO eGFR categories come with the guideline's own footnote saying two of them are not chronic kidney disease at all. PSA appears with a figure at all only because the Endocrine Society names > 4 ng/mL, and > 3 ng/mL at increased risk as reasons not to start testosterone therapy, which is a rule about prescribing rather than a reference interval. None of those is a percentile of any population, and printing a threshold in the same column as an interval is the single commonest error on a lab chart.

And then the refusals, which are most of the list. 5 analytes here have no printable figure because this site went looking and found none published: calculated free testosterone, bioavailable testosterone, estradiol in men, total cholesterol and HDL. That is not the same as the remaining blanks, which are analytes we simply have not sourced — SHBG, LH, FSH, prolactin, hematocrit, vitamin D and fasting insulin. The distinction is a column on the table below and it matters: one is a claim about the literature and the other is a claim about us. Notice, incidentally, the position free testosterone ends up in. The Endocrine Society recommends obtaining one in defined circumstances, and no harmonized reference interval for a calculated one exists. Both are true at once, and a panel that includes it is not doing anything wrong — but the number comes back with nothing standardised to read it against.

So the practical use of this page is narrow and real. Tick what a panel claims to include, and see how much of it produces a figure with a source behind it. For most marketed men's panels the answer will be a small minority, and the rest will come back as a number next to a range that belongs to whichever laboratory ran it. That is not an argument against testing. It is an argument for reading your own report's own range, and for asking what a result would change before paying for it.

Every analyte on this page, and what its result can be read against

Not a recommended panel and not a list of what to order. For each analyte a men’s panel commonly sells: what kind of number exists for it, and whether the one guideline this page opened says to measure it.

Sourced numbers of any kind: 5 of 18 (28%). Exactly 1 of those is a reference interval in the proper sense — a percentile range measured in a named population on a named assay. That one is total testosterone. The rest are decision thresholds: lines a committee drew, which is a different kind of fact printed in the same typeface. Note the two flavours of blank in the second column. "We looked; none is published" means this site went looking and published a refusal, which is true of 5 of them. "Not sourced on this site" means we have not done the work, and is a statement about this site rather than about the literature.

The one guideline that says what to measure, quoted

The Endocrine Society on testosterone deficiency. It is not a men’s health panel and does not claim to be — it answers one question, and this table is every sentence of its abstract that names a test.

Only the abstract of the Endocrine Society guideline was opened for this page; the full text is behind a publisher paywall. So where this page says an analyte is "not named", it means not named in the abstract. The guideline itself recommends "additional diagnostic evaluation to ascertain the cause of androgen deficiency" without naming the tests in the abstract, so tests it does specify in the full text would not appear here. That is a limit on this page, not a statement that those tests are unnecessary. Read the second column and the shape of the thing is clear: a guideline that answers one question names four or five analytes. A marketed panel sells eighty-three. That is not an accusation — a panel is allowed to measure things no guideline mentions — but it is the reason this page will not turn the guideline into a shopping list. Bhasin S, Brito JP, Cunningham GR, et al. Testosterone Therapy in Men With Hypogonadism: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(5):1715–1744 (PMID 29562364).

Every lab panel named in our provider records

Drawn from this site’s own provider data, not from the providers’ websites. A blank price is a blank in our record, and it is shown as a blank rather than filled in.

7 panels, 3 with a price and 4 without, and not one of them with a contents list. The recorded prices run $49 to $249 — a factor of 5.1 between the cheapest and the dearest panel we have a figure for, with no way to tell what the difference buys. One of them is sold as covering 83 biomarkers and our record carries no price for it at all, so this page computes no cost per biomarker; a price per unknown contents divided by a count from a product name would be a figure with no meaning.

The blood-work providers in our records

Everything this site holds on the providers it lists under blood work. The third column is the one that decides whether a contents comparison is possible.

3 providers of the 13 on this site sit in the blood-work category, and none of them clears a threshold of 3 named analytes. That is a small sample and part of it is a gap in our own records rather than in the market — the dates in the row headers say when each was last reviewed, and a provider that publishes its contents today may simply not have been re-read since. The honest claim is therefore narrow: we cannot compare contents from what we hold, and we will not fill the gap from marketing pages. No blood-work provider in our records discloses what is in its panels, analyte by analyte. Our records name the panels and carry some prices; they name no contents. A comparison of contents therefore cannot be drawn, and this page will not reconstruct one from marketing pages — a table of ticks assembled that way looks exactly like a table of ticks that was sourced, and there is no way for a reader to tell them apart.

Figures this tool will not give you

The grid you arrived for is the first row. Printed here rather than omitted, because a table that is missing and a table that was never drawable look identical on a page.

Six refusals, and the first of them is the page a competitor would have shipped. This page does not publish a recommended men's panel, and the absence is deliberate. No source we opened states what a general men's health panel should contain. One guideline states what to measure for one specific question — the Endocrine Society, for diagnosing and monitoring testosterone deficiency — and that is quoted in full. Assembling the rest of a panel from what is commonly sold would be inventing a recommendation and attributing it to nobody.

Frequently asked questions

What should be in a men’s health blood panel?

No source this page could open answers that, and the honest response is to say so rather than to publish a list. One guideline states what to measure for one specific question. The Endocrine Society, on diagnosing testosterone deficiency: "We recommend measuring fasting morning total T concentrations using an accurate and reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test." and then "We recommend confirming the diagnosis by repeating the measurement of morning fasting total T concentrations." It adds a free testosterone conditionally — "In men whose total T is near the lower limit of normal or who have a condition that alters sex hormone-binding globulin, we recommend obtaining a free T concentration using either equilibrium dialysis or estimating it using an accurate formula." — and on treatment asks for "measuring serum T and hematocrit concentrations; and evaluating prostate cancer risk during the first year". That is four or five analytes to answer one question. What belongs in a general panel is not a question any source we opened answers, and assembling one from what is commonly sold would be inventing a recommendation and attributing it to nobody.

How do the online lab panels differ from each other?

On name and price, which is all our records hold. Across the 3 blood-work providers this site lists, our records name 7 panels and carry 3 prices, running $49 to $249. Not one of the records discloses what is in a panel, analyte by analyte. So a contents comparison cannot be drawn from what we hold, and this page will not rebuild one from marketing pages — a grid of ticks assembled that way is indistinguishable, to a reader, from a grid of ticks that was sourced. One of the panels is sold as covering 83 biomarkers and our record has no price for it, so no cost per biomarker is computed either.

Which lab results actually have a normal range?

Far fewer than a panel implies. Of the 18 analytes on this page, 5 have a sourced figure of any kind and 1 of those is a reference interval in the proper sense — total testosterone, 264–916 ng/dL (9.2–31.8 nmol/L), from Travison 2017, healthy nonobese men 19–39, CDC-calibrated assay. HbA1c's 5.7% and 6.5%, the LDL bands at 70 / 100 / 130 / 155 / 160 / 190 mg/dL and the KDIGO eGFR categories are all decision thresholds: lines committees drew, not percentiles of any measured population. For calculated free testosterone, bioavailable testosterone, estradiol in men, total cholesterol and HDL this site prints no range at all, because none it could attribute to a named population exists.

Is a testosterone test enough, or do I need the full panel?

The guideline's answer is about sequence rather than size. It recommends a fasting morning total testosterone on an accurate assay as the initial test, then a repeat of the same measurement to confirm, and only then "additional diagnostic evaluation to ascertain the cause of androgen deficiency" — the tests for which are in the full guideline text, which is paywalled and was not opened for this page. A free testosterone is added when "total T is near the lower limit of normal or who have a condition that alters sex hormone-binding globulin". Nothing in the abstract suggests measuring eighty biomarkers before measuring the first one twice. What a broader panel is worth is a decision for the clinician ordering it.

Why does a men’s panel include free testosterone if there is no reference range for it?

Both things are true at once, and the tension is real rather than a mistake. The Endocrine Society recommends obtaining a free testosterone in defined circumstances, by equilibrium dialysis or "estimating it using an accurate formula". No harmonized reference interval for a calculated free testosterone has been published, and there is no CDC standardisation programme for one — which is why this site marks no row normal on its free testosterone calculator. A free testosterone is still informative: it moves when SHBG moves and a total testosterone does not. It just comes back with nothing standardised behind it, so it has to be read against the interval your own laboratory prints for its own equation and assay.

Are at-home lab panels as good as a clinic blood draw?

Not a question this page answers, and the reason is the same as everywhere else on it: we have no sourced comparison of collection methods to report. What can be said is narrower and still useful. A reference interval belongs to the assay that produced it — the harmonized testosterone interval assumes an assay cross-calibrated to the CDC reference method, and NIDDK specifies an NGSP-certified method for HbA1c. So the question worth asking a provider is which assay and which certification, not which envelope. Our records do not hold that for any of the 3 blood-work providers listed, which is itself worth knowing before ordering.

What does a panel cost, and is the expensive one better?

The recorded prices run $49 to $249 across 3 panels in our data, a factor of 5.1. Whether the dearer one is better cannot be answered from anything we hold, because no record says what either contains. That is the whole finding of the provider tables on this page: 7 panels named, 4 of them without even a recorded price, and zero contents lists. A price with no contents beside it is not comparable to another price with no contents beside it, and this page declines to rank them.

Can I use this page instead of the range my laboratory printed?

No, and no page can be used that way. A reference interval belongs to the assay that produced it: a testosterone measured on an uncertified direct immunoassay is not interchangeable with one calibrated to the CDC reference method, and the 264–916 ng/dL (9.2–31.8 nmol/L) interval assumes the latter. It is also an interval derived from men aged 19 to 39 and applied unchanged at 70. Use this page to work out what KIND of number each line on your report is, and how much of what you paid for comes back with a published reference at all — then read your own figures against your own report, with the clinician who ordered the test.

Sources

1. [1]Bhasin S, Brito JP, Cunningham GR, et al. Testosterone Therapy in Men With Hypogonadism: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(5):1715–1744 (PMID 29562364). Abstract: "We recommend measuring fasting morning total T concentrations using an accurate and reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test." "We recommend confirming the diagnosis by repeating the measurement of morning fasting total T concentrations." "In men whose total T is near the lower limit of normal or who have a condition that alters sex hormone-binding globulin, we recommend obtaining a free T concentration using either equilibrium dialysis or estimating it using an accurate formula." "Clinicians should monitor men receiving T therapy using a standardized plan that includes: evaluating symptoms, adverse effects, and compliance; measuring serum T and hematocrit concentrations; and evaluating prostate cancer risk during the first year after initiating T therapy." Only the abstract was opened; the full text returned HTTP 403 from the publisher
2. [2]Travison TG, Vesper HW, Orwoll E, et al. Harmonized Reference Ranges for Circulating Testosterone Levels in Men of Four Cohort Studies in the United States and Europe. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(4):1161–1173 (PMID 28324103). Abstract: "In healthy nonobese men, 19 to 39 years, harmonized 2.5th, 5th, 50th, 95th, and 97.5th percentile values were 264, 303, 531, 852, and 916 ng/dL, respectively." The only population reference interval printed on this page
3. [3]National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases — The A1C Test and Diabetes. Its results table is headed "Diagnosis" and reads "Normal below 5.7 percent / Prediabetes 5.7 to 6.4 percent / Diabetes 6.5 percent or above", and it specifies the assay: "your doctor will send your blood sample taken from a vein to a lab that uses an NGSP-certified method"
4. [4]Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB, et al. Comparison of a novel method vs the Friedewald equation for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. JAMA. 2013;310(19):2061–2068 — the source of the US and European LDL-C classification band boundaries used on this page, and of the fact that the two lists differ
5. [5]KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2024;105(4S):S117–S314 — Table 2, the GFR categories, with the footnote "In the absence of evidence of kidney damage, neither G1 nor G2 fulfills the criteria for CKD"
6. [6]Alpha Health Finder — the printable men’s lab reference sheet, which established the four-printed-eight-refused split this page extends, and which these verdicts are tested against so the two cannot disagree