ArticleBiochemia medica2024
Direct and indirect reference intervals of 25-hydroxyvitamin D: it is not a real vitamin D deficiency pandemic.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Indirect Estimation of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Reference Intervals Using Data Mining.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of New Fluorescence Immunoassay POCTs for Determining the Value of Vitamin D in Whole Blood.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of demand management on vitamin D testing.Biochemia medica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many studies report vitamin D (25-OH-D) deficiency, although there is no consensus among scientific societies on cut-offs and reference intervals (RI). The aim of this study is to establish and compare RI for serum 25-OH-D by direct and indirect methods. Materials and methods: Two studies were performed in Zaragoza (Spain). A retrospective study (N = 7222) between January 2017 and April 2019 was used for RI calculation by indirect method and a prospective study (N = 312) with healthy volunteers recruited in August 2019 and February 2020 for direct method. Seasonal differences were investigated. Measurements were performed on Cobas C8000 (Roche-Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Results: Reference intervals (2.5-97.5 percentile and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, CIs) were as follows: by indirect method 5.6 ng/mL (5.4 to 5.8) - 57.2 ng/mL (55.2 to 59.8), in winter 5.4 ng/mL (5.2 to 5.7) - 55.7 ng/mL (53.6 to 58.4), while in summer 5.9 ng/mL (5.4 to 6.2) - 59.9 ng/mL (56.3 to 62.9). By direct method 9.0 ng/mL (5.7 to 9.5) - 41.4 ng/mL (37.6 to 48.0), in winter 7.4 ng/mL (3.9 to 8.6) - 34.6 ng/mL (30.6 to 51.5), while in summer 13.3 ng/mL (10.1 to 14.1) - 44.1 ng/mL (38.9 to 66.0). In both methods, RIs were higher in summer. A significant difference was observed in 25-OH-D median values between the two methods (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Reference interval calculation according to the studied area may be a useful tool to adapt the deficiency cut-offs for 25-OH-D. Our data support 25-OH-D values over 12.0 ng/mL for healthy population as sufficient, therefore current recommendations should be updated. In addition, differences in seasonality should be taken into account.
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.