ArticleEndocrine2026
Interlaboratory method-dependent variability may impact reimbursement policies based on a priori determined 25-hydroxyvitamin D threshold levels.
Article in Endocrine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVitamin D supplementation is widely used in clinical practice and its administration is based on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations. However, 25(OH)D is an analytically challenging biomarker, and the influence of interlaboratory method-dependent variability on the routine applicability of fixed biochemical cut-offs as the only criterion for reimbursements of vitamin D supplementation remains insufficiently defined. We aimed to quantify interlaboratory analytical variability in 25(OH)D measurements using External-Quality-Assessment (EQA) data from the Lombardy region healthcare system.
methodsRetrospective analysis was performed on External Quality Controls data collected through EQA program run by Lombardy Regional Coordination Center for Laboratory Medicine during 2024-2025. Cross-laboratory control assessment utilized statistical measures including mean, coefficients of variation (CVs%), and platform-to-platform analytical comparisons.
resultsOver a two-year period, a total of 2,747 individual 25(OH)D results from approximately 114 laboratories per EQA-round were analyzed. Mean reported 25(OH)D concentration was 28.68 (SD:11.28) ng/mL, with values ranging from 16.94 to 72.57 ng/mL. Across all analytical platforms evaluated, substantial dispersion of results was observed (p < 0.001). Interlaboratory variability was substantial, with CVs ranging from 18.10 to 45.35% and a mean of 29.98% (5.96). Notably, analytical variability remained consistently high across clinically used cut-offs (< 30 and ≥ 30 ng/mL), with similar mean CVs (29.98% (5.85) vs. 29.97% (6.58), respectively; p = 0.996).
conclusionsIn real-world healthcare settings, interlaboratory analytical variability of 25(OH)D EQA measurements is high and independent of clinically adopted thresholds. These findings suggest that approaches to vitamin D administration and reimbursement based on the general application of a priori determined rigid 25(OH)D threshold levels might result methodologically fragile, supporting a greater role for clinical judgment in decisions regarding vitamin D supplementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42440151What 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.