ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2015
Multicenter Comparison of Seven 25OH Vitamin D Automated Immunoassays.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurement: Comparative evaluation of three automated immunoassays.Practical laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Review
- Blood Sampling Seasonality as an Important Preanalytical Factor for Assessment of Vitamin D Status.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe measurement of 25OH vitamin D continues to grow in clinical laboratories. The aim of this multi-center study was to compare the results of seven automated commercial immunoassays with a reference HPLC technique.
methodsOne hundred and twenty consecutive outpatient serum samples were centrifuged, divided in aliquots, frozen and shipped to the participating laboratories. 25OH Vitamin D was measured with a reference HPLC system and with seven automated commercial immunoassays (Roche Cobas E601, Beckman Coulter Unicel DXI 800, Ortho Vitros ES, DiaSorin Liaison, Siemens Advia Centaur, Abbott Architect i System and IDS iSYS).
resultsCompared to the reference method, the regression coefficients ranged from 0.923 to 0.961 (all p<0.001). The slope of Deming fit ranged from 0.95 to 1.06, whereas the intercept was comprised between -15.2 and 9.2 nmol/L. The bias from the reference HPLC technique varied from -14.5 to 8.7 nmol/L. The minimum performance goal for bias was slightly exceeded by only one immunoassay. The agreement between HPLC and the different immunoassays at 50 nmol/L 25OH Vitamin D varied between 0.61 and 0.85 (all p<0.001). The percentage of samples below this cut-off was significantly different with only one immunoassay.
conclusionsThe excellent correlation with the reference HPLC technique attests that all seven automated immunoassays may be reliably used for routine assessment of 25OH-D in clinical laboratories. The significant bias among the different methods seems mostly attributable to the lack of standardization and calls for additional efforts for improving harmonization of 25OH-D immunoassays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.