So the consensus is to use nmol/L in reporting serum vitamin D results, which is great.
Can we also reach a near consensus regarding cut-offs and associated comments that can be driven by LIMS, such as:
< 25 nmol/L : indicates vitamin D deficiency, suggest giving supplementation according to local guidelines.
25 - <50: indicates vitamin D insufficiency, advise increase sun exposure and/or giving vitamin D supplementation.
50 - 150: indicates adequate vitamin D status.
> 150 : indicates potential adverse effects, suggest reduce supplementation dose.
I would be grateful for your comments to help formulate our regional guidelines.
Regards
Mohammad
--- On Thu, 1/12/11, Stephen Davis (Cwm Taf Local Health Board - Clinical Biochemistry, Directorate of Pathology) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Stephen Davis (Cwm Taf Local Health Board - Clinical Biochemistry, Directorate of Pathology) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Harmonising vitamin D reporting units
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, 1 December, 2011, 14:24
OK, I’ll stick my head above the parapet wearing my hat as secretary for the All Wales Clinical Biochemistry Audit Group (AWCBAG);
In our case silence very much betokens assent. When we recently surveyed practice within Wales half the labs (n=3) were already reporting in nmol/L, three used ug/L and one ng/mL. We have agreed to settle on nmol/L for reporting in future.
(Survey was undertaken by Therese Michael who, with Carol Evans and Dev Datta , put together draft standards which were presented at the AWCBAG meeting held on 17/11/11)
I wait to be flamed!
Steve
Principal Biochemist
Royal Glamorgan Hospital
Ynysmaerdy
PONTYCLUN
CF72 8XR
Tel. 01443 443357
Fax. 01443 443355
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list [mailto: [log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Jonathan Kay
Sent: 01 December 2011 13:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Harmonising vitamin D reporting units
Deafening silence... does it mean agreement, you don't want the argument or you're on strike?
On 28 Nov 2011, at 16:50, Jonathan Kay wrote:
Same principles as other analytes:
1 Consistency is a good thing
2 Units of measure should be ISO. In this case the authority is passed to IFCC/IUPAC. See 1966 decision. The appropriate unit is mol/ litre.
3 Arguments that depend on current or historical practice are trumped by (2). If (3) isn't trumped by (2) how can we ever make progress?
4 Ad hoc groups, special interest groups and professional societies should be involved in improving consistency but shouldn't oppose (2). They have a crucial role in managing transitions.
5 Preference (like plumage) don't enter into it.
On 28 Nov 2011, at 12:38, Mohammad Al-Jubouri wrote:
What people think about this and what is the preferred unit of reporting?
Mohammad
Dr. M A Al-Jubouri, MB ChB, MSc, FRCP Edin, FRCPath
Consultant Chemical Pathologist |
Help save paper & cost - think before you print, do you need to print this email?
|
