Cited by 42Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationPancreatic function and diabetes

International Comparison of C-Peptide Measurements

Wiedmeyer, Hsiao-Mei, Polonsky, Kenneth S, Myers, Gary L, Little, Randie R, Greenbaum, Carla J, Goldstein, David E, Palmer, Jerry P·2007·Clinical Chemistry

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

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2006.081570

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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
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