ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Point-of-Care and Laboratory Glycated Hemoglobin A1c and Its Relationship to Time-in-Range and Glucose Variability: A Real-World Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Need for Point-of-Care Testing for Diabetes in Clinical and Laboratory Improvement Amendments-Waived Settings.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- A Comparative Evaluation of Point-of-Care and Laboratory HbA1c Testing in Diabetes Care: An Indian Perspective.Cureus · 2024Article
- Validation of the HemoCueIndian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The main objective of the current study was to perform a comparison of point-of-care testing for hemoglobin A1c (POCT-HbA1c) versus the standard laboratory method (Lab HbA1c) and their relationship to time-in-range (TIR) and glucose variability (GV) among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presented to the outpatient diabetes clinics. Methods This single-center cross-sectional study was carried out on diabetic patients (aged ≥14 years of both genders) who undergo routine follow-up at our institution and whose physicians ordered HbA1c analysis for routine care. The included patients were those using the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) Abbott's FreeStyle Libre system for at least three months and regular CGM users with at least 70% use. Results We included 97 diabetic patients (41 female and 56 male), with a median age of 25 years (Interquartile range= 18) and a mean DM duration of 10.33±5.48 years. The mean values of Lab-HbA1c and POCT HbA1c were 8.82%±0.85% and 8.53%±0.89%, respectively. The TIR, time below range, and time above range were 33.47±14.38 minutes (47.78%±14.32%), 5.44±2.58 minutes (8.41%±4.42%), and 28.8±8.27 minutes (43.81%±13.22%), respectively. According to the Bland-Altman plot analysis, the POCT-HbA1c values are consistent with the standard Lab-HbA1c values (SD of bias= 0.55, and 95% CI= -0.78 to 1.4). The univariate linear regression analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between laboratory HbA1c and POCT HbA1c (R2= 0.637,
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.