International Comparison of C-Peptide Measurements
Abstract
Background: C-peptide measurement has been widely used as a marker of insulin secretion in patients with diabetes. We assessed the comparability of C-peptide results obtained with different methods and by different laboratories and determined whether C-peptide results could be harmonized by normalization with a WHO reference reagent or with plasma. Methods: We sent 16 different heparin plasma samples to 15 laboratories in 7 countries. The samples were analyzed with 10 different assay methods. A WHO C-peptide standard was also sent to each laboratory and used to determine the feasibility of normalizing results. To assess the impact of calibrator matrix on the comparability of results, we also used the mean results of all laboratories for 4 of the samples to normalize the remaining sample results. Results: Between-laboratory variability increased with increasing C-peptide concentrations. Normalization of results with WHO reference reagents did not improve comparability, but normalization with samples significantly improved comparability among laboratories and methods. The 95% confidence interval estimate for the SD for the lab/method effect (0.0–0.061) using sample-normalized values did not overlap with the 95% CI estimate with the raw data (0.090–0.225). Conclusions: C-peptide results generated by different methods and different laboratories do not always agree, especially at higher concentrations of C-peptide. These data support the concept of using a single laboratory for multisite studies and support efforts to harmonize C-peptide measurements by use of calibrators prepared in the sample matrix.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Assays for glucose, insulin, C-peptide, FFA, and HbA1c had coefficients of variation below specified thresholds.
“The coefficient of variation of this reference method was < 3%.”
From Twenty‐four‐hour profiles of plasma glucose, insulin, C‐peptide and free fatty acid in subjects with varying degrees of glucose tolerance following short‐term, medium‐dose prednisone (20 mg/day) treatment: evidence for differing effects on insulin secretion and action (2012) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Wiedmeyer, H.-M., Polonsky, K. S., Myers, G. L., Little, R. R., Greenbaum, C. J., Goldstein, D. E., & Palmer, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Benaroya Research Institute (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Little, Randie R
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-04-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 784-787
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W2159621015
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (200200409985)
- NIDDK
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
- Keywords
- assay comparability, inter-laboratory variability, assay comparison, sample normalization, insulin secretion, diabetes mellitus
- MeSH terms
- C-Peptide, Humans, International Cooperation, Biomarkers, Clinical Chemistry Tests
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