{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012855831037649219, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018365472910927456, 'mean_word_length': 5.449704142011834, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
INTER‐LABORATORY VARIATIONS IN URINARY OESTRIOL ESTIMATES

A survey was made of the results reported from 23 New Zealand laboratories which carry out oestriol determinations on pregnancy urine specimens. All laboratories use methods based on the Kober reaction, but five different preliminary extraction procedures are used. The type of standard and stage at which it is incorporated in the procedure also varies. In consequence, the oestriol content reported to the clinician depends on the laboratory carrying out the assay as well as on excretion. Most laboratories were found to report consistent results over twelve specimens with widely different oestriol contents. Thus the inter‐laboratory variation does not affect the usefulness of serial urine oestriol determinations, provided all analyses are carried out in the same laboratory. A minority of laboratories produced inconsistent results, but in all but two cases these were confined to one batch of analyses, and thus the inconsistency reflects inadequate quality control rather than technical inability to carry out the assay.