Cited by 103Vitamin D Research StudiesClinical practice guidelines implementationClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Vitamin D–Binding Protein Concentrations Quantified by Mass Spectrometry

Open access
Hoofnagle, Andrew N., Eckfeldt, John H., Lutsey, Pamela L.·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Medical Facts vs. Value JudgmentsTo the Editor: In his Perspective article (June 25 issue), 1 Ubel contends that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines fail to consider patient preferences and values.Clinical practice guidelines are designed to assist physicians and patients in decision making in specific clinical circumstances and do not remove the physician's or patient's autonomy in decision making, nor do they eliminate the need for shared decision making between patient and physician.The NCCN guidelines were the first in oncology to incorporate patient preference in decision making.Patient advocates with full voice and vote serve on many NCCN guidelines panels, transparency procedures are in place, and the NCCN has patient versions of selected guidelines.The NCCN is developing evidence blocks to provide patients and physicians with additional information that will stimulate discussion on patient preferences and values.These evidence blocks provide information on options for therapy, including efficacy, safety (toxicity), quality of data, consistency of data, and affordability (cost).The NCCN shares Ubel's conviction that patient preferences and values should be incorporated into the application of clinical practice guidelines and is actively evolving the NCCN guidelines to better accomplish that goal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmc1502602

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoofnagle, A. N., Eckfeldt, J. H., & Lutsey, P. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-10-08
Volume
373
Issue
15
Pages
1480-1482
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2255476880
Cited by
103
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15
FWCI
10.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSN2682 01100010C, HHSN268201100007 C, HHSN2682011-00008C, HHSN268201100 006C, HHSN2682‐01100011C, HHSN2682HHSN268201100012C, HHSN268201100009C, HHSN 268201100005C)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HHSN268201 100012C, HHSN268201100007I, HHSN268201100007C, HHSN2682 01100008C, HH-SN-268201100006C, HHSN268201100011C, HHSN2682011-00005I, HHSN2682011-­00009I, HHSN268201100005C, HHSN268201100005G, HHSN268201100010C, HL103706, HHSN268201100011I, HHSN26820 1100009C, HL103706-S1, HHSN2682011-00008I, R01HL103706)
  • National Cancer Institute (U24CA160034)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK 035816, P30DK035816)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Vitamin D Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
vitamin D binding protein, serum protein quantification, mass spectrometry, patient preferences, shared decision-making, NCCN guidelines
MeSH terms
Black or African American, Chromatography, Liquid, Haplotypes, Humans, Immunoassay, Polymorphism, Genetic, Vitamin D Deficiency, Vitamin D-Binding Protein, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review