Observational studyPloS one2026
Limited diagnostic utility of albumin-corrected calcium in the intensive care unit: A prospective comparison with ionised calcium.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlbumin-adjusted calcium is widely used despite uncertainty about its accuracy in critically ill adults. We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of total calcium and of multiple published albumin-correction formulae against ionised calcium, the physiological reference standard, in an intensive care unit (ICU) cohort.
methodsIn this prospective observational cohort study, ionised calcium (iCa), total calcium, albumin, venous pH, creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, magnesium, phosphate and vitamin D were measured simultaneously. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]; sensitivity/specificity) of total calcium and of corrected calcium for detecting hypocalcaemia, defined a priori by the reference standard as iCa < 1.12 mmol/L; the pre-specified contrast was the difference between the two correlated AUCs. Twelve published measures were compared (total calcium; Payne; simplified Payne; Orrell; Berry; James; Jain; Thode; and the Pekar and Antonio estimators). Agreement, formal subgroup interaction tests, an explanatory multivariable model with collinearity diagnostics, and an exploratory internally-validated ICU equation were assessed.
resultsIn total, 250 patients were enrolled (median age 70 years; 147 men, 58.8%). Hypocalcaemia prevalence was 58.0% (n = 145). Payne-corrected calcium correctly identified only 15.2% of truly hypocalcaemic patients (Cohen κ = 0.08), versus 62.8% for total calcium (κ = 0.40). No simple albumin-correction formula significantly outperformed unadjusted total calcium (AUC 0.69-0.75; all DeLong p > 0.05 vs total calcium AUC 0.74). Only the four-variable Pekar estimator achieved a higher AUC (0.78; p = 0.005). In the explanatory model, only total calcium, pH, and sex independently predicted iCa (all variance inflation factors < 1.8); albumin, phosphate and vitamin D were not significant. An exploratory ICU-specific equation reached an optimism-corrected R² of only 0.17.
conclusionsAlbumin-corrected calcium, including all established formulae tested, provides no diagnostic benefit over total calcium in the ICU and frequently masks true hypocalcaemia. Direct ionised-calcium measurement should be prioritised when accurate calcium status affects management. These are diagnostic-accuracy findings; their clinical-outcome implications require outcome-anchored study.
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.