ArticleAnnals of global health2018
Assessment of Two Diabetes Point-of-care Analyzers Measuring Hemoglobin A1c in the Peruvian Amazon.
Article in Annals of global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of point-of-care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- Implementation of multiparameter point-of-care testing devices for non-communicable diseases at primary healthcare level in Peru.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Co-creation process of an intervention to implement a multiparameter point-of-care testing device in a primary healthcare setting for non-communicable diseases in Peru.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Performance and usability of cardiometabolic point of care devices in Nepal: A prospective, quantitative, accuracy study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Current State of Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control in Latin America: Challenges and Innovative Solutions to Improve Health Outcomes Across the Continent.Current diabetes reports · 2020Review
- Point-of-care HbA1c Measurements in Oral Cancer and Control Patients in Hungary.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith an estimated 174 million undiagnosed cases of diabetes mellitus worldwide and 80% of them occurring in low- and middle-income countries an effective point-of-care diagnostic tool is key to fighting this global epidemic. Glycated hemoglobin has become a reliable biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of diabetes.
objectiveWe assessed two point-of-care (POC) analyzers in multi-ethnic communities of the Amazon Rainforest in Peru where laboratory-based glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) testing is not available.
methods203 venous blood samples were tested for HbA1c by Afinion and DCA Vantage analyzers as well as a Premier Hb9210 high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method as the reference standard. The coefficient of variation (CV) of each device was calculated to assess assay imprecision. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess bias. Ambient temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure were also evaluated for their effect on HbA1c results using multivariate regression.
findingsThere was a wide range of HbA1c for participants based on the HPLC test: 4.4-9.0% (25-75 mmol/mol). The CV for the Afinion was 1.75%, and 4.01% for Vantage. The Afinion generated higher HbA1c results than the HPLC (mean difference = +0.56% [+6 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001), as did the DCA Vantage (mean difference = +0.32% [4 mmol/mol] p < 0.001). Temperature and humidity were not related to HbA1c; however, barometric pressure was associated with HPLC HbA1c results for the Afinion.
conclusionsImprecision and bias were not low enough to recommend either POC analyzer for HbA1c determinations in this setting.
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.