Since the 1970s, albumin-adjusted calcium has been widely used to approximate ionised calcium concentrations, particularly in patients with abnormal serum albumin levels. This adjustment was introduced to mitigate misclassification of calcium status when direct measurement of ionised calcium (technically demanding and resource-intensive at that time) was unavailable. Despite its historical utility, emerging evidence has highlighted significant limitations. This review critically examines the validity and clinical utility of adjusted calcium, with a focus on specific populations such as the elderly, critically ill, and those with kidney disease, in whom albumin derangement is more common. Adjusted calcium assumes stable ionised calcium levels across varying albumin concentrations and overlooks key modifiers such as pH, phosphate, lactate, and between-assay variability. Multiple studies demonstrate that adjusted calcium does not outperform unadjusted total calcium and may misclassify calcium status, particularly in patients with hypoalbuminaemia and impaired kidney function. Further limitations include variability in albumin assays and the derivation of adjustment formulas from non-representative populations. Adjusted calcium offers limited diagnostic value and should not replace ionised calcium where accurate assessment is essential. A reflex testing strategy, using total calcium as a screening tool, followed by ionised calcium testing when indicated, may provide a more reliable and pragmatic approach. Laboratory professionals and clinicians should recognise the considerable analytical and clinical limitations of adjusted calcium and interpret results with caution.
The definition of deficiency or insufficiency of vitamin D remains challenging because currently used thresholds of <30 nmol/L and between 30 and either 50 or 75 nmol/L are not consistently associated with clinical or biochemical abnormalities suggestive of secondary hyperparathyroidism, compromised bone volume, microarchitecture, or osteomalacia. Indeed, there is little convincing clinical, biochemical, bone densitometric, microarchitectural, or histomorphometric evidence that 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels between 30 and 75 nmol/L in community dwellers identify a vitamin D 'insufficiency' disease. There is evidence of modest elevations of serum parathyroid hormone in a minority of individuals with 25(OH)D level <30 nmol/L, alerting to the possibility of a 'deficiency' state. However, even at this level of 'deficiency', most individuals have no biochemical or bone structural abnormalities. Meta-analyses of studies grouped according to commonality in dosage of vitamin D, with or without calcium supplementation, are used to make inferences concerning the correct treatment regimens, but confounders make these inferences problematic. Few well-designed and well-executed placebo-controlled studies have tested the antifracture efficacy and safety of different doses of vitamin D or conducted factorial-designed placebo-controlled trials comparing vitamin D plus calcium supplements versus either drug alone. By contrast, it is likely that there is a vitamin D deficiency state compromising bone health in residents of nursing homes and patients with limited sunlight exposure, malnutrition, or malabsorption. These circumstances signal the possibility of emerging or established bone disease requiring investigation and supplementation if appropriate.

