Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How Accurate Are Assays for 25-Hydroxyvitamin D? Data from the International Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme

Carter, Graham D, Carter, Richard, Jones, Julia, Berry, Jacqueline·2004·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

A recent report highlighted the interlaboratory variability in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) results (1). Concerns have also been raised about the apparent inability of some 25OHD assays to reliably measure 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 (25OHD2) (2)(3)(4). The accurate measurement of this metabolite is essential for the monitoring of vitamin-D-deficient patients receiving ergocalciferol, which is the only supplement used in the United States (5) and widely used elsewhere. The international Vitamin D Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) has been monitoring the performance of 25OHD assays since 1989 and now has >100 registered participants in 18 countries. In essence, DEQAS is an ongoing, multicenter trial of the methods used by its participants and provides a unique opportunity to assess the accuracy and specificity of 25OHD methods as well as the analytical performance of a large number of their users. The organization of DEQAS has been described elsewhere (6), and details are available on the DEQAS website (www.deqas.org). In brief, five samples of normal human sera are sent out at 3-month intervals. Participants are asked to measure the total 25OHD concentration in each and return their results within 6 weeks. After statistical analysis of results (7), participants receive a report giving an All-Laboratory Trimmed Mean (ALTM) and Standard Deviation (SD) for each sample. A small study conducted in 1997 (8) showed that the ALTM was a good surrogate for the “true” (target) value produced by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. The accuracy of each result is defined by its percentage bias from the ALTM. Results for each sample are also grouped by method, and a method mean (MM) is produced. The overall accuracy of each method can be assessed from the percentage bias of the method mean from the ALTM: {[(MM − ALTM)/ALTM] × 100}.

Overview

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2004.040683

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Carter, G. D., Carter, R., Jones, J., & Berry, J.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2004-11-01
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
2195-2197
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2045984377
Cited by
306
References
0
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Accurate Are Assays for 25-Hydroxyvitamin D? Data from the International Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2004.040683
The paper
Carter, G. D., Carter, R., Jones, J., & Berry, J. (2004). How Accurate Are Assays for 25-Hydroxyvitamin D? Data from the International Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2004.040683

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.