ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Analytical performances of a glycated albumin assay that is traceable to standard reference materials and reference range determination.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glycated Albumin Guided Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of diabetes · 2026Trial
- Reference Interval for Glycated Albumin, 1,5-AG/GA, and GA/HbA1c Ratios and Cut-Off Values for Type 1, Type 2, and Gestational Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Glycated Albumin Correlates With Time-in-Range Better Than HbA1c or Fructosamine.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2023Article
- Differential Association of Glycation Products with Bone Mineral Density and Fat Mass in Healthy and Diabetes Type 2 Subjects from Mexican Southeastern: A Cross Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Analytical performances of a glycated albumin assay that is traceable to standard reference materials and reference range determination.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlycated albumin (GA) is an intermediate-term marker for monitoring glycemic control (preceding 2-3 weeks) in patients with diabetes mellitus. We evaluated the performance of Lucica Glycated Albumin-L, a new GA assay that is traceable to standard reference materials and determined the reference range in healthy subjects without diabetes.
methodsThe performance and reference range studies were conducted in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Guidelines. The traceability was established using reference material recommended by the Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC).
resultsThe coefficient of variation (CV) of overall repeatability, within-laboratory precision, and overall reproducibility values of GA values were not more than 2.6%, 3.3%, and 1.6%, respectively, among laboratories. The GA values showed good linearity from 173 to 979 mmol/mol (9.4%-54.9%) across the assay range. The GA reference range in 262 healthy subjects was between 183 and 259 mmol/mol (9.9%-14.2%) while that of subjects with diabetes was 217-585 mmol/mol (11.8-32.6%). The reagent was stable for 2 months on the bench at room temperature. The limits of blank, detection, and qualification were 6.9, 7.9, and 9.7 μmol/L for GA concentration, and 3.8, 7.0, and 21.8 μmol/L for albumin concentration, respectively. Hemoglobin slightly affected the assay, while other classical interfering substances had no significant impact.
conclusionsThe present GA assay shows comparable performance to current clinical assays and could be used for intermediate-term monitoring of glycemic control in diabetes patients.
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.