ArticleCurrent diabetes reviews2024
Clinical Risk Assessment and Comparison of Bias between Laboratory Methods for Estimation of HbA1c for Glycated Hemoglobin in Hyperglycemic Patients.
Article in Current diabetes reviews, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- HbA1c-Based Metabolic Stratification: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Biological Differences Across Normoglycemic, Prediabetic, and Diabetic Subjects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Advancing clinical biochemistry: addressing gaps and driving future innovations.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), also known as glycated hemoglobin, is a blood test used to evaluate and track a patient's blood sugar levels over the previous 2-3 months. We have compared the analytical performance of the D10 hemoglobin (HPLC) testing system to that of the immunoturbidimetric technique, which is a light-scattering immunoassay.
objectivesTo assess the clinical risk assessment between two methods (Compare the two Immunoturbidometric methods (AU680) vs. HPLC method (D10)) in hyperglycemic patients and assess the acceptability of the respective methods in the Clinical biochemistry laboratory.
methodsThe charge of the globins in Hb was used as the basis for the HPLC method used to measure HbA1c. HPLC detects and quantifies even the tiniest Hb fractions and the full spectrum of Hb variants. HbA1c was measured using the immunoturbidimetric (AU 680 Beckmann coulter analyzer) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) techniques. Experiments also made use of immunoturbidimetric techniques (using an AU 680 Beckmann coulter analyzer equipment).
resultsThere is no statistically significant difference in HbA1c readings between male and female patients, as measured by either the Immunoturbidimetric or HPLC techniques.
conclusionThe immunoturbidimetric and high-performance liquid chromatography techniques for estimating HbA1c yielded identical results. From the results of this study, we may deduce that both techniques are valid for estimating HbA1c. As a result, it may be suggested that both approaches can be used to estimate HbA1c in diabetic individuals.
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.