TY - JOUR
T1 - Vitamin D testing
T2 - advantages and limits of the current assays
AU - Altieri, Barbara
AU - Cavalier, Etienne
AU - Bhattoa, Harjit Pal
AU - Pérez-López, Faustino R.
AU - López-Baena, María T.
AU - Pérez-Roncero, Gonzalo R.
AU - Chedraui, Peter
AU - Annweiler, Cedric
AU - Della Casa, Silvia
AU - Zelzer, Sieglinde
AU - Herrmann, Markus
AU - Faggiano, Antongiulio
AU - Colao, Annamaria
AU - Holick, Michael F.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency has become a pandemic health problem with a consequent increase of requests for determining circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. However, the analytical performance of these immunoassays, including radioimmunoassay and ELISA, is highly variable, and even mass spectrometric methods, which nowadays serves as the gold standard for the quantitatively determination of 25(OH)D, do not necessarily produce comparable results, creating limitations for the definition of normal vitamin D status ranges. To solve this problem, great efforts have been made to promote standardization of laboratory assays, which is important to achieve comparable results across different methods and manufacturers. In this review, we performed a systematic analysis evaluating critically the advantages and limits of the current assays available for the measure of vitamin D status, i.e., circulating 25(OH)D and its metabolites, making suggestions that could be used in the clinical practice. Moreover, we also suggest the use of alternatives to blood test, including standardized surveys that may be of value in alerting health-care professionals about the vitamin D status of their patients.
AB - Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency has become a pandemic health problem with a consequent increase of requests for determining circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. However, the analytical performance of these immunoassays, including radioimmunoassay and ELISA, is highly variable, and even mass spectrometric methods, which nowadays serves as the gold standard for the quantitatively determination of 25(OH)D, do not necessarily produce comparable results, creating limitations for the definition of normal vitamin D status ranges. To solve this problem, great efforts have been made to promote standardization of laboratory assays, which is important to achieve comparable results across different methods and manufacturers. In this review, we performed a systematic analysis evaluating critically the advantages and limits of the current assays available for the measure of vitamin D status, i.e., circulating 25(OH)D and its metabolites, making suggestions that could be used in the clinical practice. Moreover, we also suggest the use of alternatives to blood test, including standardized surveys that may be of value in alerting health-care professionals about the vitamin D status of their patients.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85077609659
U2 - 10.1038/s41430-019-0553-3
DO - 10.1038/s41430-019-0553-3
M3 - Artículo de revisión
C2 - 31907366
AN - SCOPUS:85077609659
SN - 0954-3007
VL - 74
SP - 231
EP - 247
JO - European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
JF - European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
IS - 2
ER -