María Monsalud Arrebola, Xavier Filella, María Dolores Albaladejo-Oton, Nuria Giménez, María Gemma Serrano-Olmedo, Rafael José García-Martínez, Elena Bonet-Estruch, María Santamaría-González, Diana Pérez-Torrella, Daniel Morell-García, Juan Antonio Allué-Palacín, María Ángels Ruiz-Mínguez, Miguel Ángel Castaño-López
{"title":"Vitamin D Controversies in the Laboratory Medicine: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations.","authors":"María Monsalud Arrebola, Xavier Filella, María Dolores Albaladejo-Oton, Nuria Giménez, María Gemma Serrano-Olmedo, Rafael José García-Martínez, Elena Bonet-Estruch, María Santamaría-González, Diana Pérez-Torrella, Daniel Morell-García, Juan Antonio Allué-Palacín, María Ángels Ruiz-Mínguez, Miguel Ángel Castaño-López","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A narrative review of the main guidelines and recommendations published from 2011 up to date about the status of vitamin D deficiency has been carried out. The objective of this review is to discuss the origin of the controversy about the status of this entity, as well as the evolution of the methodological aspects and clinical situations that require vitamin D screening. The results obtained indicate that the criteria defining vitamin D status, according to two studies published in 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and the Endocrine Society (ES) guidelines, regardless the affected population. Concerning the methodology used, progress has been made thanks to the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP), although the most recent results from the external Vitamin D External Quality Program Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) indicate that there is still a significant bias among the different immunoassays available. In relation to the criteria for screening, an agreement is observed in the most recent publications.</p>","PeriodicalId":37192,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","volume":"35 4","pages":"223-243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11726334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A narrative review of the main guidelines and recommendations published from 2011 up to date about the status of vitamin D deficiency has been carried out. The objective of this review is to discuss the origin of the controversy about the status of this entity, as well as the evolution of the methodological aspects and clinical situations that require vitamin D screening. The results obtained indicate that the criteria defining vitamin D status, according to two studies published in 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and the Endocrine Society (ES) guidelines, regardless the affected population. Concerning the methodology used, progress has been made thanks to the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP), although the most recent results from the external Vitamin D External Quality Program Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) indicate that there is still a significant bias among the different immunoassays available. In relation to the criteria for screening, an agreement is observed in the most recent publications.