Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00669806%3A_____%2F21%3A10431417" target="_blank" >RIV/00669806:_____/21:10431417 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=wXsq_XRfHn" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=wXsq_XRfHn</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/jomb0-27531" target="_blank" >10.5937/jomb0-27531</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

BACKGROUND: To compare four automated immunoassays for the measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D (25-OHD) and to assess the impact on the results obtained from a healthy population. METHODS: We analysed 100 serum samples on Unicel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter), Architect i1000 (Abbott), Cobas e411 (Roche) and Liaison XL (DiaSorin). Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used for method comparison. In order to categorise the obtained values, results were categorised into the following groups: 0-25 nmol/L, 25-50 nmol/L, 50-75 nmol/L and above 75 nmol/L and compared. The percentage of samples below 75 nmol/L, and below 50 nmol/L was then calculated for every method. RESULTS: According to paired comparisons, each method differs from others (p&lt;0.0001) except Cobas vs Architect, which do not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.39). The strongest correlation was found between Liaison and Architect (ρ=0.94, p&lt;0.0001). The percentage of samples below the recommended value of 75 nmol/L were: 70% (Architect), 92% (Liaison), 71% (Cobas) and 89% (Unicel). The percentage of samples below the value of 50 nmol/L were: 17% (Architect), 55% (Liaison), 28% (Cobas) and 47% (Unicel). CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences stem from the use of different analytical systems for 25-OHD concentration analysis and can result in different outcomes. The recommended values should be established for each assay in accordance with the data provided by the manufacturer or in the laboratory, in accordance with proper standardisation.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays

Popis výsledku anglicky

BACKGROUND: To compare four automated immunoassays for the measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D (25-OHD) and to assess the impact on the results obtained from a healthy population. METHODS: We analysed 100 serum samples on Unicel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter), Architect i1000 (Abbott), Cobas e411 (Roche) and Liaison XL (DiaSorin). Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used for method comparison. In order to categorise the obtained values, results were categorised into the following groups: 0-25 nmol/L, 25-50 nmol/L, 50-75 nmol/L and above 75 nmol/L and compared. The percentage of samples below 75 nmol/L, and below 50 nmol/L was then calculated for every method. RESULTS: According to paired comparisons, each method differs from others (p&lt;0.0001) except Cobas vs Architect, which do not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.39). The strongest correlation was found between Liaison and Architect (ρ=0.94, p&lt;0.0001). The percentage of samples below the recommended value of 75 nmol/L were: 70% (Architect), 92% (Liaison), 71% (Cobas) and 89% (Unicel). The percentage of samples below the value of 50 nmol/L were: 17% (Architect), 55% (Liaison), 28% (Cobas) and 47% (Unicel). CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences stem from the use of different analytical systems for 25-OHD concentration analysis and can result in different outcomes. The recommended values should be established for each assay in accordance with the data provided by the manufacturer or in the laboratory, in accordance with proper standardisation.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30100 - Basic medicine

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Medical Biochemistry [online]

ISSN

1452-8266

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

40

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

RS - Srbská republika

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

277-285

Kód UT WoS článku

000715092100007

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85115114394