Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38552140›Full record

ReviewDiabetes care2024

Point-of-Care HbA1c in Clinical Practice: Caveats and Considerations for Optimal Use.

David B Sacks, M Sue Kirkman, Randie R Little

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Fructosamine and HbA1c for Monitoring Diabetes in Pregnancy:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Improving Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes Detection in the UK: Insights From HbA1c Screening in an Acute Hospital's Emergency Department.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

David B SacksDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0003-3100-0735
M Sue KirkmanDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-5194-9609
Randie R LittleDepartment of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO.ORCID 0000-0001-6450-8012

Funding

Standardization of C-Peptide and HbA1C Measurements ProgramU01DK133106 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Kuanysh Kabytaev · 2022 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK133106NIH Clinical Center Intramural research grantNIH HHS 5U01DK133106-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) is widely used for the diagnosis and management of diabetes. Accurate measurement of A1C is necessary for optimal clinical value. Assay standardization has markedly improved the accuracy and consistency of A1C testing. Devices to measure A1C at point of care (POC) are commercially available, allowing rapid results when the patient is seen. In this review, we describe how standardization of A1C testing was achieved, leading to high-quality results in clinical laboratories. We address the use of POC A1C testing in clinical situations and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of POC A1C testing. We emphasize the importance of considering the limitations of these devices and following correct testing procedures to ensure that accurate A1C results are obtained for optimal care of patients.

Indexed as

Glycated HemoglobinPoint-of-Care SystemsDiabetes MellitusHumansGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID38552140
PMCPMC11208753

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.