ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2017
A Comparison Study Between Point-of-Care Testing Systems and Central Laboratory for Determining Blood Glucose in Venous Blood.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2017. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The blood glucose trajectories among non-diabetic patients with total joint arthroplasty: clinical characteristics and predictors.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care Diabetes Diagnostics: Towards a Self-Powered Sensor.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Postprandial Glucose: A Variable in Continuum.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2025Review
- Correlational analysis between salivary and blood glucose levels in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Predicting hypoglycemia after treatment of hyperkalemia with insulin and glucose (Glu-K60 score).BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Utility of point-of-care vs reference laboratory testing for the evaluation of glucose levels.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2019Article
- Assessment of the performance of blood glucose monitoring systems for monitoring dysglycaemia in neonatal patients.BMJ paediatrics open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes mellitus is a metabolic disease that is characterized by hyperglycemia. Blood glucose (BG) is helpful for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes and an important part of the management of diabetes. Point-of-care testing (POCT) is generally used by patients themselves or medical personnel to monitor BG. The objective of this article was to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of POCT on venous blood samples and compare it with the central laboratory system to determine the reliability of POCT measurement results as diagnostic criteria.
methodA total of 162 venous whole blood samples were pooled in this study, which included different concentrations and were determined by three POCT systems randomly. The results were compared with the central laboratory system, which uses the Glucose GOD-PAP method (HITACHI 7600-120). The accuracy was evaluated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013.
resultBland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed three POCT systems that were comparable with the reference method (0.65, 95% CI: -0.57 to 1.86, Y = -0.11 + 0.95X for ACCU-CHEK
conclusionsThe POCT system cannot replace the central laboratory system as a provider of a standard result in clinical diagnosis. It can only be used as a screening test.
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.