Are we consistent in using 14 different units for brain natriuretic peptide instead of ng/L?

[...]BNP and NT-proBNP are currently believed to be useful in excluding acute heart failure (HF) [2,3]; diagnosing HF in primary care [4]; providing diagnosis of HF in patients with pleural effusion [5]; adding an incremental value for prognostication in chronic stable HF [6,7]; improving mortality prediction models in acute decompensated HF (ADHF) [8]; guiding therapy to decrease the risk of HF-related hospitalization but not of the risk of the all-cause mortality/hospitalization [9] (the available evidence for BNP-guided HF therapy is of low quality, insufficient [10], and restricted to HF patients with the reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, as concluded in a meta-analysis) [11]; predicting postoperative atrial fibrillation after thoracic surgery [12] and after any surgery (cardiac or noncardiac) [13]; predicting a new-onset atrial fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction [14] and major adverse cardiac events after an acute myocardial infarction and others. [...]no less than 14 different measurement units have been used for BNP, decreasing the readability and producing an unnecessary confusion.