ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of glucose concentrations in simultaneously collected plasma and serum samples from outpatients in a routine laboratory setting.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough international and national German guidelines recommend measuring glucose in venous plasma, serum remains the most commonly used sample type for glucose measurement in routine outpatient settings in Germany. The aim of the study was to compare glucose concentrations in simultaneously collected serum and plasma samples from outpatients under routine conditions, and to assess whether any observed differences could lead to divergent diagnostic outcomes for diabetes mellitus.
methodsBetween 03/01/2022 and 20/12/2024, a total of 27,864 simultaneously collected sodium fluoride plasma (NaF plasma) and serum sample pairs were submitted by 200 different medical practices to MVZ Labor Ravensburg for glucose measurement. Serum samples, all containing separator gel, were centrifuged at the medical practice after complete coagulation. In contrast, NaF plasma samples were transported uncentrifuged. Upon arrival at the laboratory, all samples were centrifuged immediately and analyzed within two hours. The median of the differences between serum and plasma glucose was calculated for each quintile of the mean glucose concentration. A contingency table was used to analyze the classification outcomes based on plasma and serum glucose concentrations.
resultsIn the concentration range above 100 mg/dL, the difference between serum and plasma glucose levels was minimal (4th quintile: 0.54 mg/dL; 5th quintile: 1.13 mg/dL). Below 100 mg/dL, the difference increased linearly with decreasing glucose concentration (3rd quintile: -1.69 mg/dL; 2nd quintile: -5.20 mg/dL; 1st quintile: -11.05 mg/dL). Using 126 mg/dL as the glucose cutoff, positive and negative diabetes classifications from NaF plasma and serum glucose agreed in 97.8% of cases. Overall, only 0.3% more cases of diabetes mellitus were classified based on NaF plasma glucose compared to serum glucose.
conclusionsIn real-world outpatient settings, glucose measurement in on-site centrifuged serum with separator gel does not appear to present a clinically relevant disadvantage for diabetes mellitus screening compared to on-site uncentrifuged NaF plasma. However, neither serum nor non-acidified NaF plasma ensures complete inhibition of in vitro glycolysis and must therefore be regarded as suboptimal for definitive diagnostic purposes.
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.