Vitamin D Controversies in the Laboratory Medicine: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations.

Q2 Medicine Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-30 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01
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.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
检验医学中的维生素D争议:临床指南和建议综述。
对2011年至今发表的关于维生素D缺乏状况的主要指南和建议进行了叙述性审查。这篇综述的目的是讨论关于这一实体地位的争议的起源,以及需要维生素D筛查的方法学方面和临床情况的演变。根据2011年发表的两项研究,所获得的结果表明,定义维生素D状态的标准,医学研究所(IOM)的建议和内分泌学会(ES)的指导方针,无论受影响的人群是谁。关于所使用的方法,由于维生素D标准化计划(VDSP)取得了进展,尽管来自外部维生素D外部质量计划评估计划(DEQAS)的最新结果表明,不同的免疫测定方法之间仍然存在显着偏差。关于筛选的标准,在最近的出版物中可以看到一致的意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adolopment of Recommendations for Standardized Reporting of Protein Electrophoresis in Pakistan. Continuous reference intervals for plasma cystatin C and creatinine in Vietnamese children. Correlation Analysis of Direct LDL Measurement and Calculated LDL Methods in Lipid Profile Assessment: A Comprehensive Study. Diagnostic Accuracy of Creatinine-Based Equations for eGFR Estimation in Pakistanis: Evaluation of the European Kidney Function Consortium Equation vs the CKD-EPI Pakistan Equation. Integrating Patient-Generated Health Data from Mobile Devices into Electronic Health Records: Best Practice Recommendations by the IFCC Committee on Mobile Health and Bioengineering in Laboratory Medicine (C-MHBLM).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1