Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36630986›Full record

ArticleExperimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association2023

Comparability of C-Peptide Measurements - Current Status and Clinical Relevance.

Sebastian Hörber, Matthias Orth, Andreas Fritsche, Andreas Peter

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The evolution of C-peptide's role in diabetes care.Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Call for Standardization of C-Peptide Measurement.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    Review
  8. Exploring the potential role of C-peptide in type 2 diabetes management.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian HörberInstitute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Department for Diagnostic Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany.
Matthias OrthInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Vinzenz von Paul Kliniken gGmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andreas FritscheInstitute for Diabetes Research and Metabolic Diseases of the Helmholtz Center Munich at the University of Tübingen, Germany.
Andreas PeterInstitute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Department for Diagnostic Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany.
Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. · DEGerman Center for Diabetes Research · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversity of Stuttgart · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

C-peptide is an increasingly used and established marker for beta cell function by assessing endogenous insulin secretion. Accurate and comparable C-peptide measurements are needed in clinical practice and research studies. For example, to calculate HOMA-indices, the C-peptide/glucose ratio, and the classification of recently published novel subgroups of diabetes and prediabetes have used C-peptide measurements. Although the process for standardization of C-peptide measurements is advanced, its full implementation is still missing; therefore, the current status of the comparability of C-peptide measurements using different immunoassays is unclear. Here we compared five widely used C-peptide immunoassays on different analyzers (Abbott ALINITY i, DiaSorin Liaison XL, Roche Cobas e411, Siemens Healthineers ADVIA Centaur XPT, and Immulite 2000 XPi) using serum samples covering the clinically relevant C-peptide concentration range. Although all investigated immunoassays are traceable to the international reference reagent for C-peptide (NIBSC code: 84/510), results of C-peptide measurements showed significant differences between analyzers in the entire concentration range, especially with increasing C-peptide concentrations. The mean bias was largest (36.6%) between results of the immunoassays by Roche and Siemens Healthineers (ADVIA Centaur XPT), and both assays revealed large discrepancies compared to immunoassays by Abbott, DiaSorin, and Siemens Healthineers (Immulite 2000 XPi). In contrast, the three latter assays showed similar C-peptide results (mean bias: 2.3% to 4.2%). Consequently, C-peptide discrepancies might affect clinical diagnosis and the interpretation of study results. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement and finalize the standardization process of C-peptide measurements to improve patient care and the comparability of research studies.

Indexed as

Clinical RelevanceC-PeptideHumansImmunoassayReference StandardsC-Peptide

Identifiers

PMID36630986
PMCPMC9998184
OpenAlexW4315630601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.