ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Comparison of point-of-care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), also known as glycated hemoglobin, is a cornerstone biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring diabetes. While high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the reference standard, point-of-care (POC) devices are increasingly used due to convenience and rapid results. However, concerns remain about their analytical accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between POC HbA1c devices and laboratory HPLC-based methods. A total of 11 studies involving 1,593 participants and 3,285 paired measurements were included. The pooled mean difference between POC and HPLC was 0.01% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.08 to 0.11%; 95% prediction interval (PI), -0.443 to 0.471%; P=0.779], well within the clinically acceptable margin of ±0.5%. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed and extensive subgroup analyses across device model, analytical principle, and study characteristics did not fully explain this variability. Notably, some platforms, such as lateral flow immunoassays, exhibited larger biases approaching thresholds relevant to clinical decision-making. Although most POC devices demonstrated acceptable agreement, results highlight the importance of careful validation and interpretation. Future research should prioritize standardized protocols, comparative studies across platforms, and assessment in real-world decentralized settings to enhance confidence in POC HbA1c measurement.
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.