Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009
DC Field | Value | |
---|---|---|
dc.title | Current 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Do they pass the test? | |
dc.contributor.author | Ong, L. | |
dc.contributor.author | Saw, S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Sahabdeen, N.B. | |
dc.contributor.author | Tey, K.T. | |
dc.contributor.author | Ho, C.S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Sethi, S.K. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-09-07T08:58:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-09-07T08:58:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-07-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ong, 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.issn | 00098981 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/127129 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background: 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.uri | http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009 | |
dc.source | Scopus | |
dc.subject | 25OHD testing | |
dc.subject | Accuracy | |
dc.subject | Correlation | |
dc.subject | Precision | |
dc.subject | Vitamin D | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.contributor.department | PATHOLOGY | |
dc.description.doi | 10.1016/j.cca.2012.03.009 | |
dc.description.sourcetitle | Clinica Chimica Acta | |
dc.description.volume | 413 | |
dc.description.issue | 13-14 | |
dc.description.page | 1127-1134 | |
dc.description.coden | CCATA | |
dc.identifier.isiut | 000304578200017 | |
Appears in Collections: | Staff Publications |
Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.