where do we find what the labs abbrevations mean

ok, this may be silly, but where do we find out what all the letter abbreviations mean on our lab works? i have my 6 month labs done, i need to up my b-12 and vitamin d..so that  is what i am working on..but is there a place we can look at what each of the letters mean? not sure really waht i am asking...like pre op my alk phos was 87, now 6 months post op it is 138, dr said it was high, but it was my bones growing..so heck if i know...and she said that my b-12 and vitamin d were in the normal ranges so i was fine...
i have 4 pages of results that i would like to know what they all mean
thanks for the help or links..
debby

I just Google them.

Yup just goggle em.

You can find a lot of info at labtestsonline.com and wlsvitagarten.com.  Of course, you can ask questions here and you can also ask your doc to explain your lab results to you.

They often say B12 and D are "in the normal range" when they are really pretty low.  If your D is below 80, you're at increased risk for stuff like osteoporosis and heart disease.  If your B12 is below 550, people usually get tired and depressed.  Below 400 you can get permanent nerve damage in your hands and feet.  And yet, most labs in the US still use old, low "normal ranges" for those two.  I don't know why, it makes no sense to me.

Kelly
You asked why labs use old normal ranges. I'm a medical technologist so I thought I would share some information. When a lab brings in a new test or a new platform to run that test the lab is required to perform a normal range study. Depending on the policies of the lab they will run a certain number of samples they collect from people normally workers and their patient population to establish the range. This could be 40 to 120 or more samples. Since they use people they assume are normal but if we as a population have said that normal is 200-800 and all the samples fall in that range the lab will keep the range they have been using. But what if that population is actually all slightly deficient? Then your normal range is skewed because of your sample. My thoughts are that the general population is actually deficient in b12 and this is why the normal ranges of most labs appear low when compared to much of the literature and studies there are

Oh, fascinating.  Thank you so much for explaining this.  I assumed they just were not incorporating more recent research into their ranges but had no idea the ranges were actually based on a (small) number of samples taken at that lab.  So what the "normal range" the labs use really means is that this is the typical range seen in a small group of people living in a relatively small geograhical area.  I always assumed that it should mean the level needed for good health.  Silly me.

I think it's pretty well established that just about everyone in the US is vitamin D deficient.  Most things I have read say that B12 deficiency is rare in the "general population" but I have wondered how accurate that is.

So why are the "normal ranges' figured in this way?  Why don't they take into account the levels actually needed for good health?

And do most doctors have any idea that is how labs come up with their normal ranges?  I think many docs assume that the normal range listed on the lab report means that patients falling into that range are healthy, when what it might really mean is that most of the people working at that lab have a particular deficiency.

The regulations actually are set up that way.  We must show what the normal range is for our patient population.  That means yes a small number in a small area.  We can't just take study values because you never know exactly how those studies are performed.  What consisted of their methods, how did they crunch the numbers, as well as how was the test performed there are differences in how analyzers measure the different tests.  The analyzer at lab A may give a reuslt of 300 while the analyzer at lab B gives a result of 500 which is right, well they are both correct but depending on how the analyzer measures the test you get different results.  I would say that the majority of doctors do not realize how a laboratory determines a normal range.  If you ever look at medical school and how doctors are taught they get little to know laboratory training.  The good ones learn how the laboratory does things.  I get asked questions by very good doctors about what we have our ranges set at and we do explain. 
It really isn't scary when you factor in that by doing it the way we are regulated to perform them, does provide the best for the population we perform testing on.  The only way to perform a more controlled study you would take your entire population, test is on every analyzer out there and develop a normal range from that but that would take years, be very costly and potentally hazardous.  Because who determines normal? 
We normally review the literature for the reference range of normal and see if we match it but the reference ranges again are based on potentially poor studies. 
Remember the laboratories will use "normal patients" and workers or other volunteers.   It all depends on what regulatory agencies state and how you do your method/test validations.  But yes there is always the possiblity that the population of samples used could be deficient/

I kind of understand why it's set up that way, but I guess what's scary is that most people assume that if their vitamin D level, for instance, falls within the normal range on their lab report, that means their level is OK.  But most labs list something like 30-100 for the normal range, which I'm sure is the typical range found in their population sample (probably most are closer to 30 than 100, I bet).  However, research shows that if it's below 80 you're at increased risk for osteoporosis.  When I look at my lab report, though, I would mistakenly think that if my vitamin D level was 50, I had nothing to worry about.  I would not suspect that I needed to take a vitamin D supplement if I wanted to lower my risk of osteoporosis.

Or, with B12.  Most labs seem to list something like 211-911 as the normal range.  But there is research that shows if it's below 550, people can develop depression.  If I am feeling very depressed and go to my doctor and have my B12 checked and it's 450 and my doctor and I mistakenly assume since it's in the "normal range" on the lab report, it isn't contributing to my depression, that's kind of scary.  My doctor might then recommend an antidepressant instead of a B12 supplement, which can have scary side effects and might not even be very effective since I would continue to suffer B12 deficiency.

That does seem scary to me.

Urk!  Now THAT'S scary!! 

This is why I insist on hard copies of all my test results.

Thanks for the info!