Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24002631›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2014

Pitfalls in hemoglobin A1c measurement: when results may be misleading.

Michael S Radin

Abstract readCase ReportsReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

182 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael S RadinDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA, mradin@winthrop.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the beginning of clinical use in the 1970s, hemoglobin A1c (A1c) has become the standard tool for monitoring glycemic control in patients with diabetes. The role of the A1c test was broadened in 2010, when the American Diabetes Association added A1c as a diagnostic criterion for diabetes. Because of hemoglobin A1c's integral role in diagnosis and treatment, it is important to recognize clinical scenarios and interfering factors that yield false results. The purpose of this review is to describe the A1c measurement, outline clinical scenarios or factors that may yield false results, and describe alternative laboratory biomarkers.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMiddle AgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID24002631
PMCPMC3912281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.