Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009
DC FieldValue
dc.titleCurrent 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Do they pass the test?
dc.contributor.authorOng, L.
dc.contributor.authorSaw, S.
dc.contributor.authorSahabdeen, N.B.
dc.contributor.authorTey, K.T.
dc.contributor.authorHo, C.S.
dc.contributor.authorSethi, S.K.
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-07T08:58:46Z
dc.date.available2016-09-07T08:58:46Z
dc.date.issued2012-07-11
dc.identifier.citationOng, L., Saw, S., Sahabdeen, N.B., Tey, K.T., Ho, C.S., Sethi, S.K. (2012-07-11). Current 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Do they pass the test?. Clinica Chimica Acta 413 (13-14) : 1127-1134. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009
dc.identifier.issn00098981
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/127129
dc.description.abstractBackground: Vitamin D testing is becoming increasingly important with recent research demonstrating a correlation between vitamin D insufficiency and metabolic diseases, immunodeficiencies and other diseases. However, existing 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) assays lack comparability to the candidate reference method, causing difficulties in diagnosis and monitoring of vitamin D deficiency. Methods: We looked at the accuracy of 3 automated assays (Roche Diagnostics Elecsys® Total 25OHD assay, Abbott Architect® Total vitamin D assay, Advia Centaur® vitamin D Total assay) and Diasorin® Radioimmunoassay (RIA) compared to a routine laboratory Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results: The correlation based on Passing Bablok regression was good with the slopes between 0.95 and 1.31 and the intercepts between - 3.24 and 3.68. However, a significant positive bias was observed using the Abbott Architect and the Diasorin RIA. Using published analytical goals of coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% and bias < 5%, most methods did not meet these criteria. Using measurement of uncertainty of 9%, most methods were able to meet criteria using quality control materials but not patient samples. Conclusion: Inadequacies of these assay performances are contributed by differences in method of extraction of vitamin D from vitamin D binding protein, cross-reactivities to 25OHD 2, 25OHD 3 and other vitamin D metabolites, matrix interferences and a lack of standardization. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subject25OHD testing
dc.subjectAccuracy
dc.subjectCorrelation
dc.subjectPrecision
dc.subjectVitamin D
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentPATHOLOGY
dc.description.doi10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009
dc.description.sourcetitleClinica Chimica Acta
dc.description.volume413
dc.description.issue13-14
dc.description.page1127-1134
dc.description.codenCCATA
dc.identifier.isiut000304578200017
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

43
checked on Aug 19, 2019

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

36
checked on Jul 1, 2019

Page view(s)

41
checked on Aug 16, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.