ArticleNutrients2026
Comprehensive Comparison of Three Automated 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassays with a VDSCP Traceable LC-MS/MS Method Across Clinically Relevant Decision Thresholds.
Article in Nutrients, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveAccurate measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) is essential for the diagnosis and management of vitamin D deficiency. Although automated immunoassays are widely used in routine clinical practice, analytical variability between platforms may lead to inconsistent patient classification around clinically relevant decision thresholds. This study comprehensively compared three automated immunoassays (DiaSorin Liaison XL, Beckman Coulter DxI 9000, and Roche cobas e602) with a Vitamin D Standardization Certification Program (VDSCP)-traceable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) reference method.
methodsA total of 400 anonymized adult outpatient serum samples were prospectively collected and equally distributed across four predefined vitamin D concentration categories (<25, 25-49, 50-74, and ≥75 nmol/L). Samples were stored at -70 °C before simultaneous analysis on the three automated immunoassays and the reference LC-MS/MS platform. Method comparison included Deming regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and evaluation of diagnostic performance at clinically relevant thresholds (<25, <50, and <75 nmol/L). The effects of sample storage, vitamin D metabolites (C3-epi-25OHD
resultsSignificant analytical differences were observed between all immunoassays and LC-MS/MS. Roche cobas e602 consistently overestimated 25OHD concentrations, resulting in reduced sensitivity but excellent specificity and positive predictive value across all clinical thresholds. Beckman Coulter demonstrated the highest sensitivity for detecting vitamin D deficiency but generated more false-positive classifications, particularly at the <75 nmol/L threshold. DiaSorin Liaison XL achieved the best overall balance between sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement with LC-MS/MS, with Cohen's κ values ranging from 0.818 to 0.895 across decision thresholds. Higher concentrations of C3-epi-25OHD
conclusionsDespite ongoing international standardization efforts, clinically important differences remain among automated 25OHD immunoassays. Assay-specific analytical characteristics significantly influence patient classification around established decision thresholds. DiaSorin Liaison XL demonstrated the closest overall agreement with the reference LC-MS/MS method, whereas Beckman Coulter prioritized sensitivity and Roche specificity. These findings highlight the importance of method-aware interpretation of vitamin D results and support continued assay harmonization to improve comparability in routine clinical practice.
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.