ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2025
Call for Standardization of C-Peptide Measurement.
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.
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.
- C-Peptide Provides Critical Contextual Insight Into Elevated Glucose Values During Progression to Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes care · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.