ArticlePloS one2025
Comprehensive performance evaluation of four chemiluminescence immunoassays for detecting vitamin D deficiency across diverse clinical conditions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesVitamin D deficiency is a significant global health concern, requiring accurate diagnosis. This study evaluates the performance of four chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platforms; Snibe, Roche, DiaSorin, and Architect for vitamin D measurement.
methodsA total of 345 serum samples, selected to represent a broad range of vitamin D levels and diverse health conditions, including pregnancy, chronic kidney disease, and osteoporosis, were analyzed using four platforms. Diagnostic metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, and overall percent agreement (OPA), were calculated. Spearman's rank correlation and bias assessment were performed to evaluate inter-assay agreement.
resultsSpearman's rank correlations were strong to very strong across the platforms, ranging from r = 0.924 to r = 0.969, reflecting high inter-assay concordance. Pairwise comparisons indicated that Snibe demonstrated high specificity (98-99%) and strong agreement with DiaSorin (κ = 0.91), while DiaSorin maintained a favorable balance between sensitivity (86-98%) and specificity (94-99%). Roche showed consistent diagnostic characteristics, with sensitivity ranging from 93-99% and specificity from 85-96%. Architect exhibited high sensitivity (97-99%) but relatively lower specificity (81-92%).
conclusionsAll platforms demonstrated robust diagnostic performance. Snibe showed notably high specificity, while DiaSorin offered balanced sensitivity and specificity. These findings underscore the relative strengths of each platform and support their use in clinical evaluation of vitamin D status.
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.