| Title |
Assessment of vitamin D levels in newly diagnosed children with type 1 diabetes mellitus comparing two methods of measurement: a facility's experience in the Middle Eastern country of Bahrain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dmso.s93355 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fatima Ahmed Al-Haddad, Mansoor H Rajab, S Mahmood Al-Qallaf, Abdulrahman O Musaiger, Kathryn H Hart |
| Abstract |
The number of children being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is on the rise and has more than doubled in the past 10 years in Bahrain. Some studies have linked low vitamin D levels with an increased risk of diabetes. There are concerns regarding the variations in circulating 25(OH)D levels measured by different laboratories and by using different analytical techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vitamin D levels of newly diagnosed children with T1DM using the "gold standard method" with high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods compared to the chemiluminescence micro-particle immunoassay (CMIA) used in a hospital laboratory. Eighteen children, aged 6-12 years, who received a confirmed diagnosis of T1DM in 2014 were chosen as subjects. Serum vitamin D levels were assessed in a hospital, while an extra aliquot of blood collected during routine blood collection after acquiring informed written consents from the subjects, and sent to Princess Al-Jawhara Center for Molecular Medicine and Inherited Disorders to be analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). The mean age of the study group was 9±2 years. The mean total of 25(OH)D levels (D3 and D2) assessed by UPLC-MS/MS was 49.7±18.8, whereas the mean total of 25(OH)D levels obtained from the CMIA assay was 44.60±13.20. The difference in classification between the two methods was found to be statistically significant (P=0.004). A Bland-Altman plot showed a poor level of agreement between the two assay methods. The CMIA overestimated insufficient values and underestimated deficiency, when compared to UPLC-MS/MS. There was a statistically significant difference between the two assay methods with CMIA overestimating vitamin D insufficiency. Clinicians should be prudent in their assessment of a single vitamin D reading, when the gold standard method is not available or feasible. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#611
of 1,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,971
of 400,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 400,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.