>
>
> --- Steve Angel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I
> find the term "LFT" as it is used at present to be
> > intellectually
> > unsettling. Strictly speaking, liver function tests
> > ought to refer to those
> > tests which are commonly used as a measure of liver
> > biological function ...........-
>
How about Liver Dysfunction Tets? Is that intellectually less
unsettling? Or do members think it is equally flawed - most being not
specific for liver?
David Cook
Dept. of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Tel: 0191 232 5131 ext 24357
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|