ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2015
Effect of the different assays of HbA1c on diabetic patients monitoring.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging biosensor probes for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) detection.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Review
- What methods are being used to create an evidence base on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care? A scoping review.Family practice · 2020Article
- Assessing agreement between the three common clinical measurement methods of HbA1c.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2020Article
- Association of serum uric acid with nephropathy in Iranian type 2 diabetic patients.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2018Article
- LDL-cholesterol measurement in diabetic type 2 patients: a comparison between direct assay and popular equations.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2017Article
- Postoperative effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in morbid obese patients with type 2 diabetes.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
- Differentiation of type 2 diabetes mellitus with different complications by proteomic analysis of plasma low abundance proteins.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHbA1c test is widely used for glycemic monitoring of diabetic patients. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of different assays for classification of patients into controlled and uncontrolled group base on ADA recommendations.
methodA total of 154 samples from patients with diabetes type 2 with HbA1c concentration covering the whole clinical range were analyzed by four commercially methods; D-10 Hb A1c (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Cobas Integra 400 (Roche Diagnostics), NycoCard Reader II (Axis-Shield) and DS5 (Drew Scientific). For each individual assay, patient's results were classified into controlled and uncontrolled groups (less or more than three decision levels; 6.5 %, 7 % and 8 %) compared to D10 results as reference method. The frequency of each group and also sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value were estimated.
resultsWe found a significant correlation between assays (r: 0.937-0.945). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the evaluated method to identify uncontrolled patients were as follows: 49.2-95.7 %, 86.5-100 %, 89.1-100 %, and 52.9-93.3 %; respectively.
conclusionsResults show that some HbA1c assays capability to classify diabetic patients according to HbA1c level is still unacceptable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.