Background: Historically, methodological differences and lack of standardization led to between-laboratory variability in 25(OH)D results. Recent observations raised concern about persisting variability. This quality assurance exercise investigated 25(OH)D result comparability between laboratories.
Methods: Serum pools (n=25) were prepared to contain endogenous 25(OH)D(2) and 25(OH)D(3) at 25(OH)D concentrations from ~12 to 150 nmol/l (5-60 ng/ml). Aliquots were sent to 8 laboratories utilizing various 25(OH)D assay methods including high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (LC-UV), LC with tandem mass spectroscopy detection (LC-MS/MS) or an automated immunoassay (Diasorin Liaison). The LC-UV results were selected as a referent to which all others were compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
Results: Good correlation (R(2)=0.87 to 0.97) was observed for all laboratories. Modest systematic bias was observed for some laboratories ranging from a positive mean bias of 10.5 nmol/l (4.2 ng/ml) to a negative mean bias of 3.5 nmol/l (1.4 ng/ml). For the laboratory with the greatest bias, 22/25 results were numerically higher (mean +15.7%) than LC-UV results. For Liaison, the primary error was likely random, whereas the major LC-MS/MS assay error source was biases likely due to calibration issues.
Conclusions: Modest inter-laboratory variability persists in serum 25(OH)D measurement. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 25(OH)D Standard Reference and calibration materials will further improve between-laboratory agreement for chromatography-based assays.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058672 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2010.08.018 | DOI Listing |
Trop Med Int Health
January 2025
Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Background: Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools are feasible alternatives to laboratory-based tools in low- and middle-income countries. However, their effectiveness compared to their laboratory-based counterparts has not been adequately tested.
Aim: We compared estimates from laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based risk prediction tools in a low- and middle-income country setting.
Front Radiol
November 2024
Department of Radiology, Giannina Gaslini Institute (IRCCS), Genoa, Italy.
Aims: This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DW-MRI) and determine the inter-reader agreement between two expert radiologists in detecting pyelonephritic foci during the initial episode of febrile urinary tract infection (fUTI) in children aged 0-5 years. Also, we aim to establish the correlation between clinical data and DW-MRI findings.
Methods: Children aged 0-5 years presenting with their first episode of fUTI were included in the study and underwent DW-MRI and Ultrasound (US) examinations within 72 h of admission.
Lab Med
November 2024
Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US.
Objective: Lymphocyte phenotyping is a valuable tool for monitoring the effects of antiretroviral therapy on individuals living with HIV-1. A switch study was conducted to compare T-cell subset quantification performed by a research laboratory and a diagnostic, laboratory to understand the impact on the retrospective and prospective results of a long-term study.
Methods: Using FACSCanto II Flow Cytometers, EDTA anticoagulated peripheral blood from 73 males enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study/Women Interagency HIV Combined Cohort Study was analyzed by both a research (laboratory 1) and a diagnostics laboratory (laboratory 2) for quantification of cluster of differentiation (CD)3, CD4, and CD8 T-cells.
Contraception
October 2024
Antiviral Pharmacology Laboratory, College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. Electronic address:
Haemophilia
January 2024
Versiti Blood Research Institute (VBRI), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Introduction: VWD diagnosis is challenging requiring multiple VWF activity tests using many individual assays. We have developed an ELISA-based VWF Multiplex Activity Assay (VWF-MAA) to address this concern; however, the ability of the VWF-MAA to discriminate between type 1 VWD, variant VWD, and normal subjects has not been evaluated.
Aim: To evaluate the VWF-MAA and its ability to differentiate between type 1 VWD, variant VWD and normal subjects in individuals undergoing an initial laboratory evaluation for bleeding.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!