Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • KSBMR

JBM : Journal of Bone Metabolism

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICIES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Page Path

2
results for

"Reference standards"

Article category

Keywords

Publication year

Authors

"Reference standards"

Original Articles

Discrepancy between Vitamin D Total Immunoassays due to Various Cross-reactivities
Jun Hyung Lee, Jee-Hye Choi, Oh Joo Kweon, Ae Ja Park
J Bone Metab 2015;22(3):107-112.
Published online August 31, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.3.107
Background

The purpose of this study was to find out the cause of discrepancy between various automated immunoassays for 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25-[OH]D).

Methods

National Institute of Standards & Technology Standard Reference Material (SRM) 972a is SRM for 25-(OH)D and consists of 4 vials of frozen serum with different concentrations of 25-(OH)D. Each concentration was measured 6 times in 3 different immunoassays: ADVIA Vitamin D Total assay (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany), ARCHITECT 25-(OH)D (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), and COBAS Vitamin D Total assay (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland).

Results

When using the certified reference values of SRM 972a as it is, discarding the cross-reactivity of each immunoassay, for ADVIA, the coefficient of determination (R2) as a score of regression analysis was 0.8995 and maximal difference between measured value and certified reference value was 3.6 ng/mL in level 3. The R2 and maximal differences of ARCHITECT were 0.5377 and 6.9 ng/mL, respectively, in level 4. Those of COBAS were 0.3674 and 22.3 ng/mL, respectively, in level 4. When considering cross-reactivities of each immunoassays to various 25-(OH)D metabolites, the ADVIA had R2 and maximal difference of 0.9254 and 3.3 ng/mL, respectively, in level 3. For ARCHITECT, the R2 and maximal differences were 0.7602 and 5.1 ng/mL, respectively, in level 1. Those of COBAS were 0.9284 and 4.9 ng/mL, respectively, in level 1.

Conclusions

The cause of discrepancies between vitamin D immunoassays was mainly on the difference in cross-reactivities to various vitamin D metabolites. The discrepancies can be considerably decreased by considering cross-reactivities of each immunoassay.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • 1. Toxoplasma gondii IgG seroprevalence in Qatar and the impact of assay variability on epidemiological estimates
    Nadin Younes, Reem Al-Ansari, Rahma Ibrahim, Farah Trad, Nouran Zein, Parveen B Nizamuddin, Alma Al-louzi, Fatima Al Khanji, Dania Yaseen, Asmaa AlTaweel, Hisham ElBanawy, Hadi M. Yassin, Laith J. Abu-Raddad, Gheyath K. Nasrallah
    Acta Tropica.2026; 278: 108072.     CrossRef
  • 2. PTH levels and establishment of reference intervals: Impact of vitamin D and renal function
    Luis Agustín Ramírez Stieben, María Lorena Brance, Marina Verónica Belardinelli, Diamela Bolzán, Estefanía Pustilnik, Rodolfo Néstor Feldman, Lucas Ricardo Brun
    Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición.2025; 72(2): 101527.     CrossRef
  • 3. PTH levels and establishment of reference intervals: Impact of vitamin D and renal function
    Luis Agustín Ramírez Stieben, María Lorena Brance, Marina Verónica Belardinelli, Diamela Bolzán, Estefanía Pustilnik, Rodolfo Néstor Feldman, Lucas Ricardo Brun
    Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.).2025; 72(2): 101527.     CrossRef
  • 4. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D are decreased in dogs with sinonasal aspergillosis
    Arnaud Snoeck, Jared A. Jaffey, Frédéric Billen, Nina F. Rodrigues, Stéphanie Peeters, Caroline Le Goff, Etienne Cavalier, Dominique Peeters, Cécile Clercx
    The Veterinary Journal.2025; 310: 106318.     CrossRef
  • 5. Accre 8 emerging point of care CLIA system for vitamin B12 assessment compared with three established assays
    Farah M. Trad, Tasneem AlHamad, Nadin Younes, Shaden Abunasser, Salma Younes, Parveen B. Nizamuddin, Dayana El Chaar, Israa M. Salameh, Nader I. Al-dewik, Wanida Laiwattanapaisal, Pattramon Aungbamnet, Pollanat Loungjinda, Palanee Ammaranond, Meng Li, Lai
    Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 6. An AuNPs-based electrochemical aptasensor for the detection of 25-hydroxy vitamin D3
    Tongji Cai, Meilun Chen, Jie Yang, Chunhua Tang, Xiaoling Lu, Zheng Wei, Hanbing Jiang, Yucui Hou, Jia Zhao, Peng Yu
    Analytical Sciences.2024; 40(4): 599.     CrossRef
  • 7. A highly sensitive LC-MS/MS method for quantitative determination of 7 vitamin D metabolites in mouse brain tissue
    Andrea Joy Stephenson, Benjamin Hunter, Paul Nicholas Shaw, Nur Sofiah Abu Kassim, Robert Trengove, Ryu Takechi, Virginie Lam, John Mamo
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.2023; 415(7): 1357.     CrossRef
  • 8. Method validation for a greener approach to the quantification of 25-hydroxy vitamin D3 in patient serum using supported liquid extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
    Gavin Turrell, Thilini Thrimawithana, Catherine Itsiopoulos, Ronda F. Greaves, Rosita Zakaria
    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM).2023; 61(12): e255.     CrossRef
  • 9. Vitamin D and Its Metabolites Status before and during Chemotherapy in Caucasian Breast Cancer Patients
    Małgorzata Kimsa-Furdzik, Anna Bednarek, Grzegorz Hibner, Paulina Czajka-Francuz, Sylwia Cisoń-Jurek, Dobromiła Karawasiecka, Bożena Szymczak, Jerzy Wojnar, Jerzy Chudek, Tomasz Francuz
    Metabolites.2023; 13(9): 996.     CrossRef
  • 10. pH assists simultaneous determination of folic acid and vitamin D3in biological fluids using a novel Tb3+–acyclovir optical biosensor
    Sarah Alharthi, M. S. Attia, M. N. Abou-Omar
    RSC Advances.2021; 11(34): 20865.     CrossRef
  • 11. Graphene oxide and fluorescent aptamer based novel biosensor for detection of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3
    Ritika Gupta, Sunaina Kaul, Vishal Singh, Sandeep Kumar, Nitin Kumar Singhal
    Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 12. In sickness and in health: pivotal role of vitamin D
    Tomislav Pavicic, Alen Vrtaric, Lara Milevoj Kopcinovic, Davorka Herman Mahecic, Ivan Bolanca, Jelena Culej, Marijana Miler, Adriana Unic, Nora Nikolac Gabaj
    Biochemia medica.2020; 30(2): 202.     CrossRef
  • 13. Improved sample preparation method for fast LC-MS/MS analysis of vitamin D metabolites in serum
    R. Rola, K. Kowalski, T. Bieńkowski, S. Studzińska
    Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis.2020; 190: 113529.     CrossRef
  • 14. Clinical Significance of Analysis of Vitamin D Status in Various Diseases
    Magdalena Kowalówka, Anna K. Główka, Marta Karaźniewicz-Łada, Grzegorz Kosewski
    Nutrients.2020; 12(9): 2788.     CrossRef
  • 15. Performance Evaluation and Measurement Uncertainty Determination of the New Version of the Abbott ARCHITECT 25-OH Vitamin D 5P02 Assay
    Yong Kwan Lim, Ae Ja Park, Oh Joo Kweon, Jee-Hye Choi
    American Journal of Clinical Pathology.2019; 151(2): 209.     CrossRef
  • 16. Vitamin D Deficiency in the Gulf Cooperation Council: Exploring the Triad of Genetic Predisposition, the Gut Microbiome and the Immune System
    Parul Singh, Manoj Kumar, Souhaila Al Khodor
    Frontiers in Immunology.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 17. Development of a method for multiple vitamin D metabolite measurements by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry in dried blood spots
    R. Rola, K. Kowalski, T. Bieńkowski, A. Kołodyńska-Goworek, S. Studzińska
    The Analyst.2019; 144(1): 299.     CrossRef
  • 18. Parathyroid hormone reference ranges in healthy individuals classified by vitamin D status
    N. Yalla, G. Bobba, G. Guo, A. Stankiewicz, R. Ostlund
    Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.2019; 42(11): 1353.     CrossRef
  • 19. Performance Evaluation of Elecsys Vitamin D Total II Assay Using Roche Modular Analytics E170
    Eun Jung Cho, Hyunjung Kim, Jeongho Park, Dongsik Kim, Youngjong Cha, Hae Kyung Lee
    Journal of Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance.2018; 40(2): 109.     CrossRef
  • 20. Comparison of Three Commercially Available Assays for Measurement of Vitamin D
    Dahae Yang, Hyunyong Hwang
    Laboratory Medicine Online.2017; 7(3): 120.     CrossRef
  • 21. Concerning the vitamin D reference range: pre-analytical and analytical variability of vitamin D measurement
    Davide Ferrari, Giovanni Lombardi, Giuseppe Banfi
    Biochemia Medica.2017;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 25,521 View
  • 27 Download
  • Crossref
Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
Ae Ja Park, Jee-Hye Choi, Hyun Kang, Ki Jeong Park, Ha Young Kim, Seo Hwa Kim, Deog-Yoon Kim, Seung-Hwan Park, Yong-Chan Ha
J Bone Metab 2015;22(2):45-49.
Published online May 31, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45
Background

Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP).

Methods

We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm2) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd).

Results

Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm2), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm2), and 5% (0.075 g/cm2) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively.

Conclusions

The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • 1. Amino Acid Complexed Minerals Zn, Mn, and Cu Improve Bone and Intestinal Characteristics in Laying Pullets
    Marcos José Batista dos Santos, Carlos Bôa-Viagem Rabello, Andresa de Gusmão Faria, Waleska R. L. Medeiros-Ventura, Rogério Ventura Silva Junior, Heraldo Bezerra de Oliveira, Fabiano Sellos Costa, Mércia Rodrigues Barros, Alba K. Fireman
    Biological Trace Element Research.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 2. The Impact of Phytase and Different Levels of Supplemental Amino Acid Complexed Minerals in Diets of Older Laying Hens
    Waleska Medeiros-Ventura, Carlos Rabello, Marcos Santos, Mércia Barros, Rogério Silva Junior, Heraldo Oliveira, Fabiano Costa, Andresa Faria, Alba Fireman
    Animals.2023; 13(23): 3709.     CrossRef
  • 3. Complexed amino acid minerals vs. bis-glycinate bound minerals: Impact on the performance of old laying hens
    Marcos J.B. Santos, Maria C.M.M. Ludke, Leandro M. Silva, Carlos B.V. Rabello, Mércia R. Barros, Fabiano S. Costa, Clariane S. Santos, Jamille S.S. Wanderley
    Animal Nutrition.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 4. Accuracy, Linearity and Precision of Spine QCT vBMD Phantom Measurements for Different Brands of CT Scanner: A Multicentre Study
    Yingwei Zhao, Kai Li, Yangyang Duanmu, Ling Wang, Xiaoming Xu, Yong Zhang, Jing Tang, Yujing Zhang, Zhenlin Li, Karen Hind, Glen M. Blake, Xiaoguang Cheng
    Journal of Clinical Densitometry.2022; 25(1): 34.     CrossRef
  • 5. Different Models of Dual-Energy Bone DXA Scanners: A Comparative Study
    Alexey V. Petraikin, Ekaterina S. Akhmad, Dmitry S. Semenov, Zlata R. Artyukova, Nikita D. Kudryavtsev, Fedor A. Petriaikin, Ludmila A. Nizovtsova
    Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia.2022; 28(2): 48.     CrossRef
  • 6. Reply to comments on “Effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
    C. Zhou
    Osteoporosis International.2022; 33(12): 2657.     CrossRef
  • 7. Cross-Calibration of Bone Mineral Densities and Body Composition between GE Lunar Prodigy and Osteosys Primus
    Yong-Chan Ha, Jun-Il Yoo
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2021; 28(3): 215.     CrossRef
  • 8. To help practitioner: monitoring treatment of osteoporosis in study of bone mineral density on different axial densitometers
    O. A. Nikitinskaya, N. V. Toroptsova
    Medical alphabet.2020; 2(37): 22.     CrossRef
  • 9. Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students
    Petr Kutáč, Václav Bunc, Martin Sigmund, Cherilyn N. McLester
    PLOS ONE.2019; 14(4): e0215599.     CrossRef
  • 10. Quantitative data standardization of X-ray based densitometry methods
    K A Sergunova, A V Petraikin, F A Petrjajkin, K S Akhmad, D S Semenov, N N Potrakhov
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series.2018; 967: 012014.     CrossRef
  • 11. Bone mineral density in healthy Syrian women measured by dual energyX-ray absorptiometry
    Mohamed Adel Bakir, Kholoud B Hammad, Khuzama M Habil
    Anthropological Review.2018; 81(1): 18.     CrossRef
  • 12. Measurement Uncertainty in Spine Bone Mineral Density by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
    Ae-Ja Park, Jun-Il Yoo, Jee-Hye Choi, Kyun Shik Chae, Chang Geun Kim, Dal Sik Kim
    Journal of Bone Metabolism.2017; 24(2): 105.     CrossRef
  • 9,565 View
  • 28 Download
  • Crossref