Dr.NephBHM_UK said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

SandraNC_45 said:

What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…

Pushing back on SandraNC_45 here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

SandraNC_45 said:

What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…

No disagreement with SandraNC_45. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.