ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2020
Assessing agreement between the three common clinical measurement methods of HbA1c.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood cell HbA1c measured by enzymatic assay show higher than whole blood HbA1c in patients with iron deficiency anemia.Diabetology international · 2025Article
- Cases of fulminant type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus whose HbA1c levels were unmeasurable due to increased labile HbA1c.Diabetology international · 2022Article
- [Anti-interference hemoglobin analysis system by high performance liquid chromatography].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has great importance in the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance parameters of the three common methods of HbA1c assay, including the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems. We studied 120 patients referred to a clinical laboratory for HbA1c assay. The blood samples were analyzed with the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems based on immunoassay, capillary electrophoresis, and ion-exchange chromatography techniques, respectively. The Spearman and the Passing-Bablok regression,as well as the Bland-Altman plots, were used to compare these methods. For each assay, the patients' classification was evaluated at the three cut-points of 6.5, 7, and 8% and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the methods were estimated. Our results showed that there were good correlations and agreement between the methods. We found a mean difference of 0.07% for the TOSOH G8 vs. Roche, 0.06% for the TOSOH G8 vs. Sebia and - 0.01% for the Roche vs. Sebia. The methods represented very low bias, indicating the good accuracy of the results. The sensitivity and specificity of the methods were comparable as well. The three methods also performed similarly in the classification of patients at the proposed cut-off points. Based on our results, the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems showed a very high level of agreement with comparable performance parameters and yielded similar and accurate classification of diabetic patients. Therefore, these methods can be used interchangeably.
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.