4.3 Review

Concerning the vitamin D reference range: pre-analytical and analytical variability of vitamin D measurement

期刊

BIOCHEMIA MEDICA
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 453-466

出版社

CROATIAN SOC MEDICAL BIOCHEMISTRY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030501

关键词

vitamin D; biological variability; analytical variability; standardization; DEQAS

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike other vitamins, the vitamin D concentration in blood varies cyclically over the course of the year in relation to genetic (gender, ethnicity, polymorphisms) and environmental factors (sunlight exposure, diet, food-related or direct vitamin D supplementation, skin pigmentation). Although the major diagnostics manufacturers have recently developed improved automated 25-hydroxy vitamin D immunoassays, the intra- and inter laboratory variability is still high (especially at low vitamin D concentrations) which might lead to incorrect vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency diagnosis. Moreover, despite recent efforts to standardize the assay and minimize its variability, the current bias for measured vitamin D concentrations is often still above the desirable +/- 10% criterion. Because the implications of low vitamin D concentrations in non-skeletal diseases are still partially unknown, international guideline recommendations for establishing meaningful ranges, at any time over the course of the year, irrespective not only of environmental and personal factors but also of instrumental variability, are needed. In this review, we discuss the main factors that influence the variability of vitamin D concentrations and whether a centile curve, individually calculated by a theoretical equation considering such factors, might be better suited than a fixed limit to assess abnormal vitamin D concentrations in otherwise healthy subjects. Vitamin D reference ranges during pregnancy, childhood, or diagnosed illnesses, which merit separate discussion, are beyond the scope of this review.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据