2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.plabm.2019.e00130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of two vitamin D immunoassays to detect 25-OH vitamin D2 and D3

Abstract: Objectives Assessment of Vitamin D status by measurement of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D) is widely performed by immunoassay. Yet, the ability of these assays to detect Vitamin D2 (as 25-OH-D2) or Vitamin D3 (as 25-OH-D3) varies. It is important to recognize the ability of an assay to quantitate either form of 25-OH-D to evaluate Vitamin D status of supplemented patients. We evaluated detection of 25-OH-D2 and 25-OH-D3 by two assays in our medical center. Design and methods … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
(6 reference statements)
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the Abbott assay, they observed a positive bias (18%) for SRM 972 level 1 and negative bias (12%) for level 3, which has a high concentration of 25(OH)D 2 ; these results are similar to results observed in this study. Garnett et al [29] investigated the efficacy of the Abbott and the Roche assays for recovery of 25(OH)D 2 and 25(OH)D 3 and found that the two assays had similar response for 25(OH)D 3 but the Abbott assay was significantly negatively biased compared to ID LC-MS/MS assay for 25(OH)D 2 , which is in agreement with the results of this study. Wyness and Straseski [40] evaluated six assays including the Abbott assay and found that the Abbott and Roche assays underestimated 25(OH)D 2 by about 25%.…”
Section: Performance Of Individual Ligand Binding Assayssupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the Abbott assay, they observed a positive bias (18%) for SRM 972 level 1 and negative bias (12%) for level 3, which has a high concentration of 25(OH)D 2 ; these results are similar to results observed in this study. Garnett et al [29] investigated the efficacy of the Abbott and the Roche assays for recovery of 25(OH)D 2 and 25(OH)D 3 and found that the two assays had similar response for 25(OH)D 3 but the Abbott assay was significantly negatively biased compared to ID LC-MS/MS assay for 25(OH)D 2 , which is in agreement with the results of this study. Wyness and Straseski [40] evaluated six assays including the Abbott assay and found that the Abbott and Roche assays underestimated 25(OH)D 2 by about 25%.…”
Section: Performance Of Individual Ligand Binding Assayssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Annema et al [28] evaluated the Abbott re-standardized Architect assay and found that the assay slightly underestimates 25(OH)D levels at low concentrations. Garnett et al [29] evaluated the Abbott Architect and Roche Cobas assays for their recoveries of 25(OH)D 2 and 25(OH)D 3 and concluded that caution should be used in interpreting results using the Abbott assay in patients supplemented with vitamin D 2 . Lim et al [30] evaluated the performance of three ligand binding assays for serum total 25(OH)D, with particular emphasis on the Abbott assay, and compared results with an ID LC-MS/MS method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evaluation of VD status by 25(OH)D measurement is usually carried out by immunoassay. 78 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)…”
Section: Immunoassaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blood samples for the assessment of vitamin D levels were prospectively collected from all BCC patients and further transferred to the certified E. Gulbis Laboratory Ltd (LATAK accreditation ISO 15189). A conventional chemiluminescence immunoassay using the Cobas 8000 analyzer (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) was performed to measure a total vitamin D serum level [36][37][38].…”
Section: Assays Used For the Detection Of Serum Vitamin D Levelsmentioning
confidence: 99%