We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Standardization of automated 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: How successful is it?
Clinical Biochemistry 2017 December
OBJECTIVES: Multiple 25(OH)D assays have recently been aligned to improve comparibility. In this study we investigated the performance of these assays using both native single-donor sera with target values certified by a reference method as well as single donor sera from a heterogeneous patient population.
DESIGN & METHODS: 25(OH)D levels were measured in twenty reference samples (Ref!25OHD; Labquality, Finland) using five automated methods (Lumipulse, Liaison, Cobas, iSYS and Access) and one aligned ID-XLC-MS/MS method (slope: 1,00; intercept: 0,00; R=0,996). Furthermore, 25(OH)D concentrations measured in 50 pregnant women and 52 random patients using the 5 automated assays were compared to the ID-XLC-MS/MS. In addition, Vitamin D binding protein (DBP) was measured.
RESULTS: Most automated assays showed significant differences in 25(OH)D levels measured in reference samples. Slopes varied from 1,00 to 1,33, intercepts from -5.48 to -15,81nmol/L and the R from 0,971 to 0,997. This inaccuracy was even more prominent in a heterogeneous patient population. Slopes varied from 0,75 to 1,35, intercepts from -9.02 to 11,51nmol/L and the R from 0,840 to 0,949. For most assays the deviation in 25(OH)D concentration increased with elevating DBP concentrations suggesting that DBP might be one of the factors contributing to the inaccuracy in currently used automated 25(OH)D methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of standardized assays, we observed significant differences in 25(OH)D concentrations in some automated methods using reference material obtained from healthy single donor sera. In sera of a patient population this inaccuracy was even worse which is highly concerning as patient samples are being investigated in clinical laboratories.
DESIGN & METHODS: 25(OH)D levels were measured in twenty reference samples (Ref!25OHD; Labquality, Finland) using five automated methods (Lumipulse, Liaison, Cobas, iSYS and Access) and one aligned ID-XLC-MS/MS method (slope: 1,00; intercept: 0,00; R=0,996). Furthermore, 25(OH)D concentrations measured in 50 pregnant women and 52 random patients using the 5 automated assays were compared to the ID-XLC-MS/MS. In addition, Vitamin D binding protein (DBP) was measured.
RESULTS: Most automated assays showed significant differences in 25(OH)D levels measured in reference samples. Slopes varied from 1,00 to 1,33, intercepts from -5.48 to -15,81nmol/L and the R from 0,971 to 0,997. This inaccuracy was even more prominent in a heterogeneous patient population. Slopes varied from 0,75 to 1,35, intercepts from -9.02 to 11,51nmol/L and the R from 0,840 to 0,949. For most assays the deviation in 25(OH)D concentration increased with elevating DBP concentrations suggesting that DBP might be one of the factors contributing to the inaccuracy in currently used automated 25(OH)D methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of standardized assays, we observed significant differences in 25(OH)D concentrations in some automated methods using reference material obtained from healthy single donor sera. In sera of a patient population this inaccuracy was even worse which is highly concerning as patient samples are being investigated in clinical laboratories.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app