ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Intra-Laboratory and Inter-Laboratory Variations Analysis for HbA1c Assays in China: Using Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assessment Data.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating the Quality Performance of Sysmex and Mindray Hematology Analyzers for Blood Cell Counting Based on External Quality Assessment Data.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Discordant real-world glycaemic outcomes with Omnipod™ 5 and MiniMed™ 780G in adults with type 1 diabetes: Why validated measures matter.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWith the worldwide increase of diabetes mellitus prevalence, ensuring the performance of HbA1c assays is essential. Internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA) serve as critical components of quality assurance systems and provide comprehensive performance assessment. We aimed to evaluate the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory variations of HbA1c assays using EQA and IQC data.
methodsA total of 326 laboratories continuously participating in the HbA1c EQA program from 2020 to 2023 were included, of which 168 laboratories reported IQC data voluntarily. Acceptance rates and bias were evaluated at three levels: per sample, per year, and per manufacturer. Intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory variations were assessed according to biological variation (BV) criteria and clinical guidelines.
resultsThe mean acceptance rates for 20 EQA samples were 48.5%, 77.8%, 86.7% within optimum, desirable, minimum BV criteria. Annual average acceptance rates increased from 91.8% to 96.9% based on EQA criterion. The absolute manufacturer-specific bias varied from 0.02% to 4.1%. By 2023, the overall inter-laboratory variation significantly decreased to 2.1%-2.6%. The median intra-laboratory variations reduced from 1.6% to 1.4% at the low QC level and from 1.2% to 1.0% at the high QC level. 58.9% and 79.8% of laboratories achieved an intra-laboratory CV < 1.5% for low and high QC levels, respectively.
conclusionsBoth inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory variations of HbA1c measurement have significantly decreased over the years. However, the difference among manufacturers still exists, and ongoing efforts are required to fully comply with clinical guideline requirements.
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.