ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2021
Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2021. 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.
- The correlation of metabolic and renal biomarkers with vitamin D status in postmenopausal women.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2023Article
- Vitamin D deficiency in relation with the systemic and central inflammation during multiple sclerosis.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2023Article
- Vitamin D Measurement: Clinical Practice and Research Implications.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2023Article
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
backgroundTo compare four automated immunoassays for the measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D (25-OHD) and to assess the impact on the results obtained from a healthy population.
methodsWe analysed 100 serum samples on Unicel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter), Architect i1000 (Abbott), Cobas e411 (Roche) and Liaison XL (DiaSorin). Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used for method comparison. In order to categorise the obtained values, results were categorised into the following groups: 0-25 nmol/L, 25-50 nmol/L, 50-75 nmol/L and above 75 nmol/L and compared. The percentage of samples below 75 nmol/L, and below 50 nmol/L was then calculated for every method.
resultsAccording to paired comparisons, each method differs from others (p<0.0001) except Cobas vs Architect, which do not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.39). The strongest correlation was found between Liaison and Architect (ρ=0.94, p<0.0001). The percentage of samples below the recommended value of 75 nmol/L were: 70% (Architect), 92% (Liaison), 71% (Cobas) and 89% (Unicel). The percentage of samples below the value of 50 nmol/L were: 17% (Architect), 55% (Liaison), 28% (Cobas) and 47% (Unicel).
conclusionsThe observed differences stem from the use of different analytical systems for 25-OHD concentration analysis and can result in different outcomes. The recommended values should be established for each assay in accordance with the data provided by the manufacturer or in the laboratory, in accordance with proper standardisation.
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.