Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32550176›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2020

Assessing agreement between the three common clinical measurement methods of HbA1c.

Mohammad Taha Jalali, Samaneh Salehipour Bavarsad, Saeed Hesam, Mohammad Reza Afsharmanesh, Narges Mohammadtaghvaei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [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 · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mohammad Taha JalaliHyperlipidemia Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Samaneh Salehipour BavarsadDepartment of Laboratory Sciences, faculty of Paramedicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Saeed HesamDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of public health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Mohammad Reza AfsharmaneshDepartment of Laboratory Sciences, faculty of Paramedicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Narges MohammadtaghvaeiHyperlipidemia Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-4175-8099

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cut-offsHbA1cMisclassificationRocheSebiaTOSOH G8

Identifiers

PMID32550176
PMCPMC7270288

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.