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.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insulin resistance in the 21st century: new takes on an old problem-2025 Diabetes, Diabetes Care, and Diabetologia Expert Forum.Diabetologia · 2026Review
- Biomarkers of partial remission in paediatric type 1 diabetes: β-cell stress, immune-metabolic remodelling, and translational priorities-a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- C-peptide as an important biomarker in diabetes management: The need for standardization of its measurement.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Commonly used C-peptide assays show differing associations with CGM metrics.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The evolution of C-peptide's role in diabetes care.Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity · 2026Review
- Persistent C-peptide secretion is associated with favourable CGM metrics in adults with type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Call for Standardization of C-Peptide Measurement.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Exploring the potential role of C-peptide in type 2 diabetes management.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Review
- Characterisation of type 2 diabetes subgroups at diagnosis: the COPERNICAN prospective observational cohort study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Approaches to Measuring Beta Cell Reserve and Defining Partial Clinical Remission in Paediatric Type 1 Diabetes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Glucose Metabolism and Cognitive Decline in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome: A Preliminary Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Challenges of CRISPR/Cas-Based Cell Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes: How Not to Engineer a "Trojan Horse".International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Insulin Secretion Capacity as a Crucial Feature to Distinguish Type 1 From Type 2 Diabetes and to Indicate the Need for Insulin Therapy - A Critical Discussion of the ADA/EASD Consensus Statement on the Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults.Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.