ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Laboratory considerations in the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in pregnant women by automated immunoassays.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dummy Templated Receptors Showing Enhanced Affinity for Vitamin D3.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Because of the pathophysiological role of vitamin D in health, there is an increased interest to check the clinical status of this vitamin. Immunochemical assays are commonly employed to determine 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25 (OH) D) in clinical laboratories and its testing could be influenced by pre-analytic and analytic issues. The aim of this study was to compare the 25(OH)D results obtained from three commonly used immunoassays in pregnant women to check a possible discrepancy between tests. Material and methods: A group of 50 pregnant women who were in their third trimester were included in this study. The quantification of serum vitamin D was performed utilizing three immunochemistry-based assays including Elecsys, VIDAS and Alegria. We also involved 21 non-pregnant volunteers to clinically assess the vitamin D status in this group of people. Results: Our findings revealed a significant inconsistency between the obtained results from three assays for serum 25(OH)D. The 25(OH)D showed higher values when measured by the Elecsys assay while the VIDAS assay had lower values compared to the other immunoassays. More notably, the 25(OH)D testing in non-pregnant subjects showed consistent results in all three immunoassays. Conclusions: The results of the 25(OH)D measurements in pregnant women should be interpreted carefully due to a great inaccuracy in immunoassay testing. There is no such disagreement in non-pregnant people. Standardization of vitamin D testing in various settings is a crucial matter for clinical laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.