ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2024
Evaluation of effects from hemoglobin variants on HbA
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Ensuring HbA1c Accuracy and Variant Detection in Hemoglobin G-Coushatta and Queens Using Variant Mode Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Establishment and international comparison of reference methods for glycated hemoglobin].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2026Article
- Glycemic assessment when hemoglobin A1c is unreliable: a clinical-laboratory framework for kidney disease, anemia, and hemoglobinopathies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe impact of seven hemoglobin variants (Hb Q-Thailand, Hb G-Honolulu, Hb Ube-2, Hb New York, Hb J-Bangkok, Hb G-Coushatta, and Hb E) on the outcome of HbA
methodsTwenty-nine normal and 112 variant samples were measured by LC/MS/MS, Sebia Capillarys 3 TERA, Intelligene Biosystems QuanTOF, Premier Hb9210, Arkray HA-8190V, Bio-Rad D-100, and Tosoh G11, then evaluated for correlation, consistency, and mean relative bias among six methods. The lowest biological variation bias of ±2.8 % was an acceptable standard.
resultsAll methods showed poor correlation and consistency with LC/MS/MS for Hb E. The unacceptable biases were observed for Capillarys 3 TERA (-14.4 to -3.7 % for Hb Q-Thailand, Hb Ube-2, Hb New York, Hb J-Bangkok and Hb E), QuanTOF (-8.3 to -2.9 % for Hb Ube-2, Hb New York and Hb G-Coushatta), Premier Hb9210 (-18.3 to -3.6 % for Hb Q-Thailand, Hb Ube-2, Hb New York, Hb J-Bangkok and Hb E), HA-8190V variant mode (-17.3 to 6.6 % for Hb G-Honolulu, Hb Ube-2, Hb New York, Hb G-Coushatta and Hb E). All variant samples showed larger biases than ±2.8 % comparing HA-8190V fast mode, D-100, and G11 with LC/MS/MS.
conclusionsThe accuracy of different HbA
Indexed as
Identifiers
38563053What 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.