ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of hemoglobin a1c measurement methods: inter-device agreement and clinical impact.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widely recommended for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus (DM). Minimal changes in HbA1c concentration can influence clinical decisions, making accurate and interference-free measurement essential. To compare the analytical performance and inter-method agreement of three HbA1c measurement techniques-Capillary Electrophoresis, High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), and Turbidimetric Immunoinhibition-used in routine clinical practice. Fifty EDTA-anticoagulated patient samples were consecutively analyzed using HPLC (Tosoh G8), Capillary Electrophoresis (Sebia Capillarys 3 Tera), and an autoanalyzer (Beckman DXC 700 AU). Results were stratified into four HbA1c ranges (4-6%, 6-8%, 8-10%, 10-12%) and analyzed using Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman, and Passing-Bablok regression. Capillary Electrophoresis and HPLC showed a high degree of agreement (r = 0.998, bias = 0.07). Capillary Electrophoresis vs. autoanalyzer also demonstrated high correlation (r = 0.997) but a larger bias (0.52) that increased at higher concentrations. HPLC vs. autoanalyzer yielded r = 0.997 and bias = 0.45, with proportional bias at high HbA1c levels. Passing-Bablok analysis confirmed concentration-dependent deviations for the autoanalyzer. Capillary Electrophoresis and HPLC provide highly consistent HbA1c results, while the autoanalyzer may introduce clinically relevant bias, particularly at higher HbA1c levels, which may influence clinical interpretation near commonly used decision thresholds. However, given the limited sample size, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.