ArticleDiabetology international2026
Comparability of venous versus capillary hemoglobin A1c measurements.
Article in Diabetology international, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level measurement using venous blood sample is essential for diabetes management. However, this method is not always readily accessible in primary health care in Indonesia. This study aimed to evaluate the comparability of venous versus capillary blood HbA1c measurement. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed, involving subjects with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D). Venous blood samples were analyzed using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyzer. Simultaneously, capillary blood samples from the same subjects were analyzed using a point-of-care testing (POCT) instrument based on capillary electrophoresis (CE). Passing-Bablok regression was performed to assess constant or proportional bias between methods. Bland-Altman test was conducted to evaluate the agreement of HbA1c measurement between venous and capillary. Results: Out of 162 subjects, 129 (79.6%) had diabetes, 9 (5.5%) had newly developed diabetes, and 24 (14.8%) did not have diabetes. Mean venous HbA1c was higher (7.79%) than capillary HbA1c (7.49%). Bland-Altman analysis showed that mean bias for all subjects was -0.30%, with 93.8% of subjects within the limit of agreement. Besides, mean bias between subjects with venous HbA1c < 6.5% and ≥ 6.5% was - 0.14% and -0.38%, respectively. Meanwhile, Passing-Bablok regression showed no constant and proportional bias in subjects with venous HbA1c < 6.5%. However, constant and proportional bias were found in all subjects and in those with venous HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Conclusions: Capillary HbA1c results have a good agreement with venous HbA1c. Capillary HbA1c POCT method can be considered as an alternative for monitoring diabetes. HbA1c measurement ≥ 6.5% should be interpreted with caution. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-026-00889-3.
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.