↓ Skip to main content

Minimizing Matrix Effects for the Accurate Quantification of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Metabolites in Dried Blood Spots by LC-MS/MS.

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Chemistry, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
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.
Title
Minimizing Matrix Effects for the Accurate Quantification of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Metabolites in Dried Blood Spots by LC-MS/MS.
Published in
Clinical Chemistry, April 2016
DOI 10.1373/clinchem.2015.251538
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Kvaskoff, Alicia K Heath, Henry A Simila, Pauline Ko, Dallas R English, Darryl W Eyles

Abstract

The noncalcemic actions of vitamin D in multiple organs are now widely recognized. Vitamin D status has been linked with a wide variety of conditions, which has led to an increasing demand for vitamin D screening. In particular, there is intense interest in the impact of vitamin D on a variety of developmental conditions. The most readily accessible pediatric samples are dried blood spots, and health organizations are increasingly archiving such samples for later assessment of the antecedents of disease. In 2009, we developed a method to quantify the major circulatory form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, in archived dried blood spots. Over the last 6 years, we have made substantial alterations to the published method to enhance throughput, sensitivity, and assay robustness. With the alterations, the assay was 3 times faster than the previously published assay and had a >10-fold increase in signal strength. Intraassay imprecision decreased from 13.4% to 6.9%, and there was a 5-fold reduction in interfering phospholipids. In actual use over 2 years, the assay showed an interassay imprecision of 11.6%. This assay has performed reliably over the past 6 years. The practical changes we have made should allow clinical chemists to successfully adapt this method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,145,205
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry
#6,769
of 7,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,368
of 301,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 301,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.