ArticlePediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism2022
Which C-peptide assay do you use? Increasing need for describing C-peptide assay performance.
Article in Pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- C-peptide as an important biomarker in diabetes management: The need for standardization of its measurement.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The evolution of C-peptide's role in diabetes care.Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity · 2026Review
- Call for Standardization of C-Peptide Measurement.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many C-peptide assays are commercially available for research and routine use. However, not all assays yield consistent results, especially in the low concentration ranges. We searched the literature describing C-peptide measurements to assess which assays are mainly used in the diabetes research field and if they are specified. Percentages of publications on C-peptide measurements in type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and other forms of diabetes were 32%, 54% and 14%, respectively. In only 54% of the publications the used assay was specified. Information on detection limit, measurement range and variation was provided in 12%, 2% and 11% of publications, respectively. In 22% of all publications no C-peptides concentrations were mentioned. This may be a problem especially for T1D research, where measuring very low levels of C-peptide is becoming increasingly important and concordance between assays is low.
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.