Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781799›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

Call for Standardization of C-Peptide Measurement.

Erwin Schleicher, Kuanysh Kabytaev, Matthias Nauck, Dirk Müller-Wieland, Andreas Peter, Randie R Little, Lutz Heinemann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Erwin SchleicherInstitute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Department for Diagnostic Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3565-3733
Kuanysh KabytaevDepartments of Pathology & Anatomical Sciences and Child Health, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA.
Matthias NauckInstitut für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald/DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Greifswald, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Dirk Müller-WielandMedical Clinic I, RWTH Aachen University, Germany, Aachen.
Andreas PeterInstitute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Department for Diagnostic Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Randie R LittleDepartments of Pathology & Anatomical Sciences and Child Health, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA.
Lutz HeinemannScience Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2493-1304

Funding

Standardization of C-Peptide and HbA1C Measurements ProgramU01DK133106 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Kuanysh Kabytaev · 2022 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK133106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn impaired β-cell function is a key contributor to the pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus that can be estimated by the biomarker C-peptide. Measurement of C-peptide can therefore be used for prediction, diagnosis, and subclassification of diabetes. Furthermore, C-peptide assists in the prediction of therapeutic response and guiding therapeutic decisions. To support diabetes classification, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) have recently introduced serum C-peptide cut-off values in their guidelines: <0.2 nmol/L C-peptide levels suggest the presence of type 1 DM while C-peptide levels >0.6 nmol/L indicate type 2 DM. However, analytical aspects limit the clinical utility of these defined cut-off values since standardization of C-peptide measurements has not been achieved. Results from different assay manufacturers still show significant variability.

resultsThis discrepancy can have significant consequences, as reliance on C-peptide testing for diabetes classification and therapeutic decisions has steadily increased in recent years. Although there have been growing calls to standardize C-peptide testing and a process for standardization has been established, standardization has unfortunately yet to be implemented in practice.

conclusionIt therefore seems appropriate for health care providers to advocate for standardized C-peptide measurements, which is more or less in the hands of the manufacturer of the C-peptide assays, to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient safety.

Indexed as

C-peptidediabetes diagnosisinsulin measurementprediabetes

Identifiers

PMID40781799
PMCPMC12335430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.