ArticleEJIFCC2026
Comparison of two analytical methods for HbA1c determination: HPLC ADAMS™ (ARKRAY A1c HA-8180T) versus CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA® (Sebia) capillary electrophoresis system.
Article in EJIFCC, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HbA1c is a valuable indicator for the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of diabetic patients. Our study aims to compare two methods of measuring HbA1c: capillary electrophoresis on the CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® (Sebia) with HPLC ADAMS™ (ARKRAY A1c HA-8180T) used routinely in our laboratory, to avoid any discrepancies in patient monitoring in case of changes in the HbA1c measurement method. A total of 103 blood samples from adult patients received at the laboratory have been analyzed in parallel, singly, on both machines. The results show a good correlation between the two systems with a correlation coefficient of 0.991. The Bland and Altman difference diagram shows that the average bias between ADAMS A1c™ and CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® is 2.087 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.7357 to 2.4390 mmol/mol) in IFCC units and 0.19% (95% CI: 0.1602 to 0.2262%) in the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) units, and that out of all the patients studied, only four had values outside the limits of the difference diagram. The latter shows a uniform dispersion of values across all the analyzed measurements, with over 95% of the differences between measurements falling within the range [-1.43; 5.61 mmol/mol] or [-0.14; 0.52%]. These results enable us to confirm the reliable transferability between the two techniques without compromising accuracy. Both machines can therefore be used interchangeably or as backup, ensuring homogeneous patient monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42006492PMC13088505What 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.