Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

vividsailor7 said:Eosinophilia can show up during an allergic reaction.
What kind of digestive issues are you dealing with?
Your results look normal otherwise.

To be honest, I don't have any digestive issues at all. I’ve never dealt with stomach aches, bloating, or anything like that—nothing. Back in high school, I actually had to get tested because my dermatologist was convinced I had either an ulcer or H. pylori just because of some stubborn breakouts on my chin that wouldn't clear up. Turns out, I did have H. pylori! Luckily, I treated it with antibiotics about four years ago and haven't had a single issue since.

But I am definitely allergic to things—specifically, I have a pretty severe allergy to parabens. Right now, it's flaring up on the palms of both hands and my left wrist, so that could definitely be the culprit here. I was a little spooked by these high numbers, though, because when I checked my iron levels three months ago, everything was perfectly fine.

Thanks so much!

Could someone please help me make sense of these results? I’m currently 33 weeks pregnant, and so far, I’ve gained about 28 pounds. I am managing hypertension with medication—taking Aldomet (Methyldopa) at 500 mg twice a day. (Just as a side note, I’ve actually been dealing with high blood pressure since long before I was pregnant, so I'm already on a treatment plan for it.) I had some blood work done at the lab and also did a one-time urine protein test.

Urinalysis:

Creatinine, urine sample: result 8.58 (Unit mmol/L)
Total Protein/Creatinine ratio: result 0.016 (Unit g/mmol, Ref. interval Total Protein, urine sample: result 0.140 (Unit g/L)

Hematology/Coagulation:

Prothrombin Time: INR value 0.89 (normal range 0.85 - 1.15)
PT: measured value 25 S (normal range 23 - 34 S)
Thrombin Time: measured value 15 S (normal range 16 - 21 S)
D-DIMER: measured value 2.13 mg/L (normal range < 0.50 mg/L)
Fibrinogen: measured value 4.7 g/L (normal range 1.8 - 3.5 g/L)
AT III: measured value 123 % (normal range 83 - 118 %)

Thanks so much in advance!
(P.S. During my first pregnancy about five years ago, I ended up having a C-section at 38 weeks because of some blood pressure complications.)

Hello,
I was wondering if anyone might be able to offer some insight regarding my urinalysis results.

I'm 28 years old and recently underwent a routine medical screening for work. My blood work came back perfectly fine, but apparently, my urine analysis is a different story.

1. Test Results (Jan 12, 2012)

2. Test Results (Jan 13, 2012)

3. Test Results (Jan 30, 2012) - I had a bit of a cold this day, though I'm feeling slightly better now.

My doctor also sent me for an ultrasound to rule out kidney stones, but they didn't find anything in my kidneys or bladder.

I have to go back in two weeks for follow-up blood and urine tests. If things haven't improved by then, I'll likely need to see a urologist.

I should mention that I'm not experiencing any pain while urinating or otherwise. I haven't been prescribed any medication yet either.

The doctor told me the results aren't exactly "bad," but then added that they shouldn't be ignored, either. A bit of a contradiction, I suppose.

I would be grateful if someone could offer any advice or perspective on these findings.

Thanks!

ambernomad3 said:............
I am an allergy sufferer—quite severely when it comes to parabens. Right now, the reaction has flared up on my palms and my left wrist, so that could definitely be the culprit. Honestly, these recent numbers have me a little spooked because when I had my iron levels checked just three months ago, everything was perfectly fine.

Thanks so much!

You really ought to see an allergist. My dermatologist isn't giving me a straight answer, but hey, at least we know what's going on.

Kenneth Campbell75 said:Greetings,
I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding my urinalysis results.

I'm 28 years old and recently went in for a medical screening for work. My bloodwork came back clean, but they're saying my urine results aren't right.

1st Exam (01/12/2012)

2nd Exam (01/13/2012)

3rd Exam (01/30/2012) - I caught a cold that day, but I'm feeling a bit better now.

.....

Did they perform a urine culture?
It would also be a good idea to get a 24-hour urine calcium test.

Chris Kelly50 said:Could someone please interpret these results? I'm 33 weeks pregnant.....

In my opinion, the results look fine.
Perhaps one of the other colleagues here has something to add.

Aaron Clark5 said:My iron levels hit 26. It’s barely above the ceiling, but since I usually hover well below the floor, it’s a bit unsettling. Then there's the sedimentation rate; the standard range is 0 to 22, yet mine is double that limit. I've never really had to deal with bloodwork before, and until now, everything was fine—aside from my usual struggle with anemia.

To whom it may concern,

Like my colleague mentioned, your results look fine to me. Regarding those iron levels you're worried about: keep in mind that serum iron isn't a static number. It fluctuates daily—even hourly—so it isn't necessarily a reliable snapshot of your actual iron stores.

Regarding your sedimentation levels, you mentioned a value of 22. That is NOT an elevated reading. Assuming your transcription is accurate, that result is perfectly normal.

vividsailor7 said:My dermatologist isn't making much sense, but honestly? Whatever. It is what it is.

Why is this the case? When dermatologists see allergic reactions, immune issues, or skin flares, they almost always start looking for an inflammatory focal point somewhere else in the body—often ordering tests for H. pylori. Is there a specific clinical reason for that, or is it part of some other standard protocol?

Chris Kelly50 said:I need an interpretation of these results. I’m currently 33 weeks pregnant and have gained 13 kg so far. I am on hypertension medication—taking Aldomet (Methyldopa) at 500 mg twice daily. Just as a side note, I’ve been managing my blood pressure long before this pregnancy, as I'm a chronic hypertensive. These tests were ordered by the transfusion department, including blood work and protein levels from a single urine sample.

vividsailor7 said:If you ask me, the results look fine.
Perhaps some of my colleagues have something to add.

I’m on the same page as my colleague here. The urine protein levels look clean. Regarding the coagulation profile, that D-dimer reading is a bit elevated, but we have to account for context. A reference value under 0.5 mg/L seems far too low for the third trimester, when D-dimer levels naturally climb due to physiological shifts. I can't recall the exact upper limit for the third trimester offhand—I think I saw something around 1.5 mg/L mentioned once, though I'd need to verify the source. Interpreting D-dimer elevations during pregnancy is always a moving target because these values rise naturally anyway; many experts argue that these specific markers lose much of their diagnostic weight during gestation. That said, the data shows that pregnant women dealing with hypertension generally trend higher than those without it.

The rest of the results fell within the standard range.

I'd suggest checking in with your gynecologist. Given your medical history and previous diagnoses, they might interpret these specific numbers through a different lens.

Maria Fisher46 said:Ma'am,
..............
But why? It’s standard practice for dermatologists to hunt for an underlying inflammatory source when they see allergic, immune, or ID reactions breaking out on the skin—which often includes testing for H. pylori. Or is there some other procedure involved?
..................

Look, I get what you're saying. It makes sense. But I just don't see any actual indication—just "a few stubborn breakouts on the chin"—that justifies an H. pylori test. Seriously. Especially when you consider that roughly 60-70% of the American population is positive for H. pylori or carries the infection. My take on eradicating H. pylori is simple: don't go through the trouble of eradication unless there are clear symptoms present, whether that's gastrointestinal issues or skin conditions like urticaria or rosacea. So if there are no symptoms, why on earth are we even running these tests? That's exactly what's happening here.

Many thanks, Dr. Hrvoje, for the educational overview and your insights. 🙂

Can someone help me make sense of these urinalysis results?

leukocytes 100 /μl; ++
erythrocytes 50 /μl; +++
bilirubin neg.
ketones neg.
glucose normal
nitrites neg.
urobilinogen normal
proteins neg.

urine sediment:

erythrocytes 5-7
leukocytes 20-25
casts /
crystals /
squamous epithelial cells 2-4
1-2 small epithelial cells
some bacteria
some mucus

thanks!

Brenda Alvarez said:Can someone help me make sense of these urinalysis results?

WBC 100 /μl; ++
RBC 50 /μl; +++
bilirubin neg.
ketones neg.
glucose normal
nitrites neg.
urobilinogen normal
protein neg.

urine sediment:

RBC 5-7
WBC 20-25
casts /
crystals /
squamous epithelial cells 2-4
1-2 small epithelial cells
some bacteria
some mucus

thanks!

The most important thing here is knowing *why* these tests were ordered in the first place.
On their own, these numbers look like a classic urinary tract infection. You really need to get a urine culture done to be sure.

vividsailor7 said:The context matters here—why were these tests ordered in the first place?
If they point toward a UTI, you definitely need a urine culture.

My doctor didn't send me for a urine culture.
Should I ask for a referral?
She just put me on Cephalexin.
Right now, I'm sticking to tea, cranberry juice, and those cranberry plus Vitamin C capsules.
I actually went ahead and got these tests done on my own because the pain was getting bad.
I’ve been having this intense pelvic pain; a few nights ago, it woke me right up.
It felt like everything was just being forced out of me.
It also hurts when I pee, and there was blood on the toilet paper.

vividsailor7 said:Everything stated above holds water. However—and this is a significant "however"—I fail to see any actual clinical indication for an *H. pylori* test here. Those "few stubborn breakouts on the chin" just don't justify a full diagnostic sweep. Besides, we have to consider the sheer statistical reality that roughly 60-70% of the American population is positive for *H. pylori*. It’s practically ubiquitous. My firm stance on *H. pylori* eradication is quite simple: there is absolutely no reason to pursue eradication unless there are clear, present symptoms—whether we're talking about gastrointestinal distress or specific skin issues like urticaria or rosacea. If that's the case, then why even bother running the tests in the first place? This situation is a perfect example of over-testing without cause.

It seems to me that there’s a massive, almost irrational avoidance here toward dermatologists who actually manage to nail a diagnosis—a trend I saw play out with my own case when they identified chronic gastritis based solely on facial inflammation and hyperpigmentation. I just don't get it. Honestly, why the hesitation? Just because seventy percent of the population struggles with a specific condition doesn't mean an individual should be forced to endure endless side effects or throw money down the drain on overpriced cosmetics and vanity treatments—all when the entire issue could be resolved with a single visit to a specialist and the right prescription.🤷

vividsailor7 said:Regarding my area of expertise—it’s gastroenterology. So, to give you a proper answer, I’m going to pull two direct quotes from the standard internal medicine and gastroenterology textbooks.
Ana Votava-Raić — Chapter 33: Food Allergies
The diagnostic process—if one can even call it that—is a grueling marathon of uncertainty. It’s an exhausting cycle of tests, waiting rooms, and endless speculation that leaves you feeling less like a patient and more like a data point in some massive, impersonal experiment. You go through the motions, hoping for clarity, but all you really get is a mounting pile of paperwork and a deepening sense of dread.
Let’s be honest—these lab results don't carry much weight when it comes to making an actual diagnosis. They aren't the smoking gun people think they are. If you want any real insight, you might find some scraps of useful information by looking at the lymphocyte and eosinophil counts in a peripheral blood smear—but even then, it's a far cry from a definitive answer.
Boris Vucelić et al.—Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The XII-immune system—if we’re even going to call it that—is an absolute mess of biological redundancies and questionable design choices. It feels less like a finely tuned machine and more like a series of frantic, overlapping patches applied to a crumbling codebase by developers who were clearly working under extreme pressure. You look at the way these layers interact, and honestly, it’s a miracle the whole thing doesn't collapse under its own complexity—though, given how often our bodies seem to be tripping over their own feet, maybe it should.
XII 3 ALLERGIC AND PSEUDOALLERGIC REACTIONS
Branimir Čvorišćec—Asja Stipić-Maraković.
4.4 NUTRITIONAL ALLERGIES
Diagnosis.
If you dig through the standard laboratory results—specifically looking at the peripheral blood work—you’ll often stumble upon eosinophilia.
Internal Medicine — Božidar Vrhovac and associates.

It would be quite helpful if you could actually disclose your sources. I realize you're likely leaning on standard medical textbooks—which are all well and good—but if you happen to have access to a more relevant or cutting-edge authority, please, do share.
As for Richter—I trust his judgment implicitly. If he decided to let you go, believe me, there was a damn good reason behind it. At the end of the day, how he treats you, or how he communicates moving forward, is entirely on you—you set that tone through your own conduct.

It’s honestly quite fascinating—if you can call it that—when some gastroenterologist dismisses gastritis and H. pylori as if they're nothing more than a "piece of cake"—an absolute walk in the park—given that roughly 70% of the American population is carrying around that very same infection.☕ And let’s be clear—facial issues shouldn't be the only thing triggering a request for a checkup—it goes much deeper than that. Honestly, thank God you aren't my doctor.😉

If you insist on clinging solely to those outdated textbooks they handed out in med school—well, good luck to you when you actually step foot in a clinic. You’re going to need it. 😬 A little bit of advice from an allergist would actually go a long way here—purely as a practical lesson in clinical reality. I honestly think your medical training should have taught you that clinical symptoms can deviate wildly from what the lab results suggest. You’re reminding me of this one OBGYN I once met who insisted it was physically impossible for a pregnant woman to have a positive urine culture without showing any actual symptoms. It’s the same kind of rigid, textbook-only thinking—completely disconnected from how patients actually present in the real world.🤣) A book is one thing, but the actual clinic is a whole different story.

Regarding Dr. Richter—it’s honestly fascinating to watch him spout all that nonsense and belittle people online, yet when he's face-to-face, he suddenly loses all that nerve because his chair starts shaking. 😉

Brenda Alvarez said:My doctor didn't even bother ordering a urine culture
should I go back and ask for a referral?
She just handed me some Keflex
now I'm stuck drinking tea, cranberry juice, and taking those cranberry supplements plus Vitamin C.
I actually went ahead and got these tests done on my own because the pain was getting unbearable.
The lower pelvic pain is driving me crazy—a few nights ago, I actually woke up in agony,
it felt like everything down there was just going to explode.
And yeah, it hurts like hell to pee, and there was blood on the toilet
paper.

Look, you did the right thing by testing, though personally, I always prefer having a clear urine culture result before starting any antibiotic therapy. Just stick to what was prescribed, then once you finish the full course of ABT, take a three-day break and then get that urine culture done.

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some perspective on my sister’s recent 24-hour urine test results. Lately, she’s been dealing with some significant polyuria—she's putting out about 5 liters of urine a day.
Here is what the lab report shows:
Albumin in urine: 34.4 (normal range up to 30)
24-hour urine volume: 4300 mL (normal range up to 1600)

Creatinine excretion: 226 umol/kg/d..

Just to be clear, she followed the collection protocol perfectly. A senior lab technician, who happens to be our sister, supervised her through the process three separate times to ensure everything was done right. Despite that, the report includes a note suggesting the results might be falsely elevated..

A while back, I dealt with a urinary tract infection caused by bacteria. It eventually cleared up, but during my last urinalysis, the results mentioned something that sounded like "salad" in my urine. Obviously, they didn't mean actual salad, but rather some sort of mixture of components... After that, I haven't bothered with any more testing since everything seems to have resolved itself and I feel perfectly fine.

I am curious, though—what does it actually mean when a report refers to a "salad" in the urine? Does it have anything to do with those bacteria I had before?

jadelynx16 said:Dear Sirs,

I need some advice regarding my sister's 24-hour urine test results. Lately, she's been struggling with excessive urination (about 5 liters of urine a day).
She received the following results:
urinary albumin - 34, 4 (normal up to 30)
24-hour urine volume - 4300 (normal up to 1600)

Creatinine excretion 226 umol/kg/d...

Just to clarify, she collected the urine properly (one of the senior lab techs is her sister and supervised the whole thing), and this was done three times in a row. However, the report states the result is falsely elevated...

1. I don't get this "three days in a row" part—did everything go into one single container? Or how does that even work?
2. If these are the complete findings, then this entire workup is a total waste of time.
Check her blood pressure.
It is absolutely necessary to determine serum and 24-hour urine electrolytes, serum/urine aldosterone, cortisol, and a full metabolic panel.
Nephrology workup required.

Peter Flores said:A while back, I dealt with a UTI—basically a bacterial infection in my urinary tract. It eventually cleared up, but the last time I had a urinalysis done, the doctor mentioned something about having "salad" in my urine. Obviously, they didn't mean literal lettuce, but some kind of components of a salad or something. Since then, I haven't bothered with any more tests because everything feels fine and I feel totally normal.

But I'm curious, what on earth does "salad" in your urine even mean? Does that have anything to do with those bacteria?

I have absolutely no clue what that means, but look—if the lab results come back normal, then they’re normal. Period.

vividsailor7 said:1. I don't quite follow the "three days straight" part—was everything being collected into a single container? Or how does that work?
2. If these are truly the complete results, then this entire diagnostic workup is pretty much useless.
Check her blood pressure.
They need to run a full panel on serum and 24-hour urine electrolytes, check aldosterone (serum/urine), cortisol, and standard biochemistry.
A full nephrology evaluation is required.

No, no, no... the first time she collected it, they told her the sample was invalid. Then it happened twice more because they basically argued it was physiologically impossible for someone to drink 5 liters of fluid and still produce the kind of levels she’s showing.

jadelynx16 said:No, no, no... this is ridiculous. The first time she had her tests done, they just tossed them out and claimed they were invalid. Then it happened twice more! Apparently, according to them, it’s "impossible" to drink five liters of fluid and still show results like hers. Just pure nonsense.

Honestly, if she hasn't already, she needs to go see a nephrologist immediately.
It's high time someone took a full medical history—looking at things like excessive thirst and other symptoms—and ran a proper, comprehensive workup.
And maybe, just maybe, the people over at the lab will actually learn how to coordinate with one another.

vividsailor7 said:Ideally, she should see a nephrologist—if she hasn't already.
She needs a full clinical history taken, covering things like excessive thirst and other symptoms, followed by a proper workup.
And hopefully, the folks at the lab can get their act together.

The thing is, she’s incredibly thirsty, drinking liters of fluids, but her glucose profile looks fine. However, this all started right when she began taking gabapentin.

The problem is, nobody seems willing to refer her elsewhere. They just keep making comments about how she didn't produce enough urine—as if she’s somehow incompetent, despite the fact that she holds a Master’s degree.

I don't understand why they can't just issue the results exactly as they are.

My sister is scheduled for septoplasty; would you recommend going through with surgery given these current findings?