Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Comparing four fully automated 25-OH-D immunoassays to a commercially available liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method with human serum samples from Finnish population. METHODS: 400 samples were analyzed with the Liaison Total Vitamin D, the IDS-iSYS 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D, the ARCHITECT 25-OH Vitamin D, the ADVIA Centaur Vitamin D Total, and a commercially available LC-MS/MS 25-OH D (PerkinElmer) method. RESULTS: The Liaison method mean value (95% confidence intervals) was 65.6 nmol/L (62.6 - 68.6); the IDS-iSYS mean was 70.3 nmol/L (67.4 - 73.1); the ARCHITECT mean was 69.0 nmol/L (65.5 - 72.5); ADVIA Centaur mean was 71.6 nmol/L (68.9 - 74.3), and the LC-MS/MS mean was 82.8 nmol/L (79.4 - 86.2). The regression coefficients (r) between the LC-MS/MS and immunoassays were 0.650 for Liaison, 0.757 for IDS-iSYS, 0.721 for ARCHITECT and 0.684 for ADVIA Centaur. With the Passing-Bablok analysis, none of the immunoassays gave results equivalent to LC-MS/MS. Two of the four automated 25-OH-vitamin D assays (IDS-iSYS, ADVIA Centaur) were overall in good clinical agreement with LC-MS/MS, even though the results obtained with all compared methods were not equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, in routine clinical laboratory both immunoassays and LC-MS/MS are useful for measuring 25-OH-vitamin D provided that these methods are correctly standardized and especially sample pretreatment is carefully performed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koivula et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: