ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2020
Fingerstick Precision and Total Error of a Point-of-Care HbA1c Test.
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.
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.
- HbA1c measurement using capillary blood in epidemiological studies: a scoping review of technologies and approaches.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Article
- Reply to comment on "Unexpected decline in glycated hemoglobin level after emergency COVID-19 measures in three robust older Japanese women with prediabetes/mild type 2 diabetes".Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2022Article
- Comment on glycated hemoglobin level after emergency COVID-19.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2022Article
- Effect of Full-mouth Disinfection Protocol on Glycaemic Control and Subgingival Microbiota in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Article
- Accuracy and Precision of a Point-of-Care HbA1c Test.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Observational
- Analysis of a Point-of-Care HbA1c Assay: Is It Time for an HbA1c Error Grid?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Article
- Analysis: Investigating the quality of POCT devices for HbA1c, what are our next steps?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.