Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
One thing that is still open after DeniseRN_TPA’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?