Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30841743›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2020

Fingerstick Precision and Total Error of a Point-of-Care HbA1c Test.

William D Arnold, Kenneth Kupfer, Monica Hvidsten Swensen, Kyle S Fortner, Harold E Bays, Mathew Davis, Leslie J Klaff, Richard C San George

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comment on glycated hemoglobin level after emergency COVID-19.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Accuracy and Precision of a Point-of-Care HbA1c Test.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

William D ArnoldAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, a division of Abbott Laboratories, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kenneth KupferAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, a division of Abbott Laboratories, San Diego, CA, USA.
Monica Hvidsten SwensenAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, a division of Abbott Laboratories, Oslo, Norway.
Kyle S FortnerAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, a division of Abbott Laboratories, San Diego, CA, USA.
Harold E BaysL-MARC Research Center, Louisville, KY, USA.
Mathew DavisRochester Clinical Research, Inc, Rochester, NY, USA.
Leslie J KlaffRainier Clinical Research Center, Inc, Renton, WA, USA.
Richard C San GeorgeAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, a division of Abbott Laboratories, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) HbA1c tests hold the promise of reducing the rates of undiagnosed diabetes, provided they exhibit acceptable analytical performance. The precision and total error of the POC (Afinion™ HbA1c Dx) test were investigated using whole blood samples obtained by fingerstick and venipuncture.

methodsFingerstick samples spanning the assay range were collected from 61 subjects at three representative POC sites. At each site, six fingerstick samples were obtained from each subject and tested on the POC test across two (Afinion AS100) instruments. Repeatability, between-operator, and between-instrument components of variance were calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Four venous samples (low, threshold, medium, and high HbA1c) were measured in duplicate across three instruments using three reagent lots, twice per day over 20-days. Repeatability, between-run, between-day, between-lot, and between-instrument components of variance were calculated. These fingerstick and venous blood results, combined with estimates of imprecision and bias from a prior investigation, allowed for the calculation of the total coefficient of variation (CV) and total error of the POC test using fingerstick and venous whole blood samples.

resultsThe total imprecision ranged from 1.30% to 2.03% CV using fingerstick samples and from 1.31% to 1.64% CV using venous samples. The total error ranged from 2.87% to 4.75% using fingerstick samples and from 2.93% to 3.80% using venous samples.

conclusionsThe POC test evaluated here is precise across its measuring range using both fingerstick and venous whole blood. The calculated total error of the test is well under the accepted quality requirement of ≤6%.

Indexed as

Blood Chemical AnalysisPoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingBiomarkersDiabetes MellitusGlycated HemoglobinHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesBiomarkersGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humandiagnosis of diabetesHbA1chemoglobin A1cpoint of careprecisiontotal error

Identifiers

PMID30841743
PMCPMC7753852

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.