ArticleBMC endocrine disorders2026
HbA1c measurement using capillary blood in epidemiological studies: a scoping review of technologies and approaches.
Article in BMC endocrine disorders, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map and describe the capillary blood-based technologies employed to measure glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in epidemiological studies, focusing on their accuracy, applicability, feasibility, and implementation barriers.
introductionThe development of technologies for diabetes screening and monitoring has expanded, particularly in decentralized and epidemiological contexts.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and CINAHL between 18 and 24 February 2025. The search was conducted without restrictions on language, publication year, or geographic location, retrieving studies indexed up to 31 January 2025. We included primary epidemiological studies involving adults (≥ 18 years) that assessed HbA1c measurement using capillary blood technologies or approaches in field or population-based settings. Studies exclusively evaluating capillary glucometers, continuous glucose monitoring, or oral glucose tolerance tests were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed full-text eligibility against pre-specified criteria registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively based on outcomes reported by the original study authors and categorized in regard to the aim.
resultsOf 2,238 records screened, 106 studies were included. Fifteen distinct analytical technologies for HbA1c measurement using capillary blood were identified, with Point-of-Care Testing (PoCT) devices representing the predominant category. Among studies reporting diagnostic accuracy metrics, sensitivity ranged from 17.4% to 100% and specificity from 43.5% to 99.1%. PoCT devices required 2-10 µL of capillary blood and produced results within minutes. Applicability findings described portability, limited training requirements, and use in decentralized settings. Dried Blood Spot (DBS) approaches facilitated remote collection and mailing to reference laboratories. Reported challenges included variability in analytical performance, limited validation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), and operational constraints related to cost, supply logistics, and integration into health systems. Overall, 77% of included studies were conducted in High-Income Countries (HICs).
conclusionsCapillary blood-based technologies for HbA1c measurement have been applied across diverse epidemiological contexts, with reported analytical and operational characteristics consistent with decentralized use. Nevertheless, the evidence remains geographically concentrated and heterogeneous, indicating gaps in research from LMICs.
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.