Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36278402›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2024

Improving the Bias of Comparator Methods in Analytical Performance Assessments Through Recalibration.

Stefan Pleus, Manuel Eichenlaub, Thomas Gerber, Elisabet Eriksson Boija, Konstantinos Makris, Cornelia Haug, Guido Freckmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Stefan PleusInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4629-7754
Manuel EichenlaubInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2150-3160
Thomas GerberDiabetes Center Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Elisabet Eriksson BoijaEqualis AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Konstantinos MakrisWorking Group on Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Scientific Division, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-7896-9028
Cornelia HaugInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Guido FreckmannInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0406-9529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn analytical performance studies, the choice of comparator method plays an important role, as studies have shown that there exist relevant systematic differences (bias) between laboratory analyzers. The feasibility of retrospective recalibration of measurement results through comparison with methods or materials of higher metrological order to minimize bias was therefore assessed.

methodExisting data from performance studies of continuous and blood glucose monitoring systems were retrospectively analyzed. Comparison with a higher-order method was performed for two different data sets. In both cases, subject samples were measured, and a subset was also measured on a higher-order method. Recalibration based on higher-order materials (standard reference material [SRM]) was conducted for two different data sets containing results from SRM and subject samples. Linear regression analysis was performed for each device separately. Resulting equations were applied to the respective complete data set of subject samples. Bias between devices in a data set across all subject samples was assessed before and after recalibration.

resultsBias between devices was reduced from -3.6% to +0.6% in one data set and from +11.0% to +0.3% in the other by recalibration based on higher-order method. Using higher-order materials, bias was also reduced by recalibration, but mixed results were found: Bias was reduced from -3.1% to -0.1% in one data set and from -4.3% to -2.7% in the other.

conclusionsRecalibration did lead to a decrease in bias and thus can reduce the impact of the choice of comparator method. The procedure should be verified in a prospectively designed setting.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringBiasCalibrationHumansReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesBlood Glucoseanalytical performance specificationcomparator methodcontinuous glucose monitoring systemrecalibration

Identifiers

PMID36278402
PMCPMC11089879

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.