ArticleBiochemia medica2024
Establishment and application of autoverification system for HbA1c testing.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to determine autoverification rules for routine glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) analysis based on high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) principle. Laboratory information system (LIS) and Bio-Rad D-100 Advisor software (Bio-Rad, Hercules, USA) with graphics recognition function were carriers for the autoverification system. Materials and methods: A total of 105,126 HbA1c results, including 98,249 HbA1c matching fast plasma glucose (FPG) results of real-world data from May 2019 to June 2020, were collected to determine autoverification rules including flags, delta checks, reporting limits, and logical rules. The validation database was composed of 48,045 HbA1c results and 41,083 matching FPG results. Autoverification passing rate and the reduction of turnaround time (TAT) were evaluated. Results: Four autoverification systems (A, B, C, D) were established by two types of delta check rules, 28 flags, one reporting limits, and two kinds of logical rules. The autoverification passing rates were 80.6%, 78.8%, 83.7%, and 81.3%, and the average time saved in TAT were 117.5 min, 116.7 min, 121.1 min, and 121.7 min, respectively. Conclusions: Autoverification system C was the optimal one. Application of distribution of FPG corresponding to HbA1c groups had better performance as logical rules. Established HbA1c autoverifcation system shortened the auditing report time and improved work efficiency.
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.