ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Analytical evaluation of the ADAMS
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The usefulness of HbA1c measurement in diabetic mouse models using various devices.Experimental animals · 2025Article
- Autoimmune Thyroiditis in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Retrospective Study of 91 Cases.Cureus · 2024Article
- Analytical performance evaluation of hemoglobin A1c on an ARKRAY HA-8160 analyzer with newly-developed mobile phase buffer.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Cases of fulminant type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus whose HbA1c levels were unmeasurable due to increased labile HbA1c.Diabetology international · 2022Article
- Analytical evaluation of the ADAMSJournal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Usefulness of Automated Hb-HPLC Analyzer Based on Reverse-Phase Cation-Exchange Chromatography for Hemoglobin A1C Determination in the Setting with High Prevalence of Hemoglobin E Disorder.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ADAMS
methodsTrueness, imprecision, carry over, linearity, the effect of anemia and correlation with ADAMS
resultsThe results were found to be accurate (total error of 1.74%) and precise: within-run, between-run, between-day and total coefficients of variation were 0.71%, 0.77%, 0.36%, and 0.93% at low concentrations, and 0.43%, 0.29%, 0%, and 0.48% at high concentrations of HbA1c. Carry over, linearity, and correlation of methods were excellent. HbA1c measurement was independent of total Hb concentration in a range 40-214 g/L, and shows no interference from Hb chemically modified commonly observed in this type of analysis, while common Hb variants are detected.
conclusionThe analyzer is a suitable system for glycemic control in patients with diabetes and the detection of Hb variants.
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.