You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Concordance between direct and indirect measurements of free 25-OH vitamin D
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinica Chimica Acta, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cca.2017.10.016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pilar Peris, Xavier Filella, Ana Monegal, Nuria Guañabens, Laura Foj, María Bonet, Dolors Boquet, Enrique Casado, Dacia Cerdá, Alba Erra, Carmen Gómez-Vaquero, Silvia Martínez, Nuria Montalá, Concepción Pittarch, Eduardo Kanterewicz, Miquel Sala, Xavier Suris, Josep L. Carrasco, LabOscat study group |
| Abstract |
At present, data comparing the quantification methods for measurement of free vitamin D (direct assay [direct 25-OHDF] and estimated by calculation [calculated 25-OHDF]), are scarce. The aim of this study was to analyse the concordance between these two methods of 25-OHDF analysis (direct vs. calculated). Serum values of total 25-OHD (25-OHDT), vitamin D binding protein (DBP) (by R&D Systems ELISA), calculated 25-OHDF (by DBP, albumin and 25-OHDT) and direct 25-OHDF (by DIAsource ELISA) were analysed in 173 healthy women (aged 35-45years). Assessment of concordance was evaluated by the Bland-Altman plot and the total deviation index (TDI). The mean values of calculated and direct 25-OHDF in these subjects were 5.27±2.5 and 3.83±1.01pg/ml, respectively. We found significantly lower values of 25-OHDF on comparing subjects with and without vitamin D deficiency, independently of the method used. The total deviation index evaluated by the Bland-Altman plot showed low concordance for both measurements. Only low 25-OHDF levels were concordant. This study shows that the concordance between these two methods of 25-OHDF analysis is low and has a concentration dependent bias. Further studies are necessary to clarify the reference values and the indications for 25-OHDF measurement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinica Chimica Acta
#4,057
of 4,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,890
of 336,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinica Chimica Acta
#32
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,794 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.