ArticleBMC primary care2026
Assessing the reliability and validity for metabolic syndrome diagnosis using point-of-care analyzers in a mobile setup - a pilot study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
backgroundThe metabolic syndrome (MetS) is characterized by having three or more of these risk factors: increased blood glucose (Glc), serum triglycerides (TG), blood pressure (BP), waist circumference (WC), and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Mobile diagnostics using point-of-care (POC) blood analyzers could help identify individuals at risk. This pilot study assessed reliability and validity of MetS risk factor analysis using POC analyzers in a mobile examination unit.
methodsFifty participants (52 ± 7y; 170 ± 10 cm; 80 ± 19 kg, m/f: 21/29) were included for analysis. The mobile examination unit was equipped with different POC analyzers (Alere, LABGEO, CardioChek for Glc, HDL, TG; Quo-Test-A1C Testkit for HbA1c'). Agreement compared to a reference laboratory (RefLab) was analyzed by Bland-Altman (bias, Limits of Agreement (LoA)), ICC, SEM and McNemar's test. Test-retest analysis was assessed on two different days (max. two weeks apart) using Spearman's rho, ICC, test-retest variability (TRV%) and McNemar's test.
resultsBased on the smallest bias and low number of missing values (Glc: -5 [LoA - 25 to 6] mg/dl; TG: 8 [LoA - 58 to 30] mg/dl; HDL: -2 [LoA - 14 to 9] mg/dl), and the highest agreement in MetS diagnosis compared to the results of RefLab, the Alere POC device was chosen. Test-retest reliability (n = 16) for MetS risk factors and HbA1c measured in the mobile setup ranged from poor to excellent with low TRV (0.9-5.8%). Risk factor classification and MetS diagnosis did not differ between measurement days.
conclusionsA mobile setup using the Alere POC analyzer could be used as a valid mobile screening method for MetS to ensure early detection of risk factors.
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.