Cargando…

A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography

OBJECTIVE: Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin responsible for calcium metabolism and more recently discovered effects. This led to an increase in requests for vitamin D test by clinicians. New automated assays have been introduced for 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurement. METHODS: Results from these new...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reda, Hala, Soliman, Sonya, Girguis, Hany, Nagy, Mohamed, Mahmoud, Yousra, Yasser, Nouran
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32334467
http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1039
_version_ 1783574091842715648
author Reda, Hala
Soliman, Sonya
Girguis, Hany
Nagy, Mohamed
Mahmoud, Yousra
Yasser, Nouran
author_facet Reda, Hala
Soliman, Sonya
Girguis, Hany
Nagy, Mohamed
Mahmoud, Yousra
Yasser, Nouran
author_sort Reda, Hala
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin responsible for calcium metabolism and more recently discovered effects. This led to an increase in requests for vitamin D test by clinicians. New automated assays have been introduced for 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurement. METHODS: Results from these new method have to be related to a Standard method to obtain best results for practical usage. In our study, one hundred venous blood samples were analyzed for 25-OH vitamin D on three immunological methods in our lab and correlated with ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) method as a reference method. RESULTS: Statistically analysis of results obtained for correlations between the 3 methods against the reference UPLC was done by Spearman’s Correlation. It showed positive correlation in all methods with significant p value < 0.001. Differences and biases between methods were evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot and Cohen’s Kappa agreement. Best agreement was found in Cobas 6000 followed by the Access2 then comes Architect. CONCLUSIONS: All immunoassays can be used in routine 25(OH) D measurements, still some methods are better than others. A clinical laboratory must at least be aware of its method to avoid misinterpretation of results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7445983
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74459832020-09-02 A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography Reda, Hala Soliman, Sonya Girguis, Hany Nagy, Mohamed Mahmoud, Yousra Yasser, Nouran Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Research Article OBJECTIVE: Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin responsible for calcium metabolism and more recently discovered effects. This led to an increase in requests for vitamin D test by clinicians. New automated assays have been introduced for 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurement. METHODS: Results from these new method have to be related to a Standard method to obtain best results for practical usage. In our study, one hundred venous blood samples were analyzed for 25-OH vitamin D on three immunological methods in our lab and correlated with ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) method as a reference method. RESULTS: Statistically analysis of results obtained for correlations between the 3 methods against the reference UPLC was done by Spearman’s Correlation. It showed positive correlation in all methods with significant p value < 0.001. Differences and biases between methods were evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot and Cohen’s Kappa agreement. Best agreement was found in Cobas 6000 followed by the Access2 then comes Architect. CONCLUSIONS: All immunoassays can be used in routine 25(OH) D measurements, still some methods are better than others. A clinical laboratory must at least be aware of its method to avoid misinterpretation of results. West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7445983/ /pubmed/32334467 http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1039 Text en This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Reda, Hala
Soliman, Sonya
Girguis, Hany
Nagy, Mohamed
Mahmoud, Yousra
Yasser, Nouran
A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title_full A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title_fullStr A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title_short A Comparison between Three Different Automated Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassay Methods and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
title_sort comparison between three different automated total 25-hydroxyvitamin d immunoassay methods and ultra performance liquid chromatography
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32334467
http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1039
work_keys_str_mv AT redahala acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT solimansonya acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT girguishany acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT nagymohamed acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT mahmoudyousra acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT yassernouran acomparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT redahala comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT solimansonya comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT girguishany comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT nagymohamed comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT mahmoudyousra comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography
AT yassernouran comparisonbetweenthreedifferentautomatedtotal25hydroxyvitamindimmunoassaymethodsandultraperformanceliquidchromatography