ArticleEJIFCC2026
Comparative Performance Analysis of Three Point-of-Care Glucose Testing Devices against a Central Laboratory Reference Method.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) glucose systems are widely used in clinical practice due to their rapid turnaround time and operational convenience. However, concerns remain regarding their analytical agreement with laboratory reference methods, particularly in relation to accuracy and potential clinical impact. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study included 196 adult outpatients at Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. Capillary blood glucose was measured using three POCT devices (StatStrip, Accu-Chek Inform II, and Rightest), while venous plasma glucose was analyzed using a hexokinase-based reference method (Alinity C). Analytical performance was evaluated using correlation analysis, Bland-Altman plots, Passing-Bablok regression, and ISO 15197 accuracy criteria. Results: All POCT devices demonstrated strong correlations with the reference method (r = 0.967-0.982; p < 0.001). StatStrip showed a small negative bias (-2.89 mg/dL; p = 0.003), while Accu-Chek Inform II exhibited a larger deviation (-7.80 mg/dL; p < 0.001). In contrast, Rightest showed no statistically significant bias (-0.14 mg/dL; p = 0.870) and demonstrated the closest agreement with the reference method. Agreement analysis confirmed minimal systematic and proportional bias for Rightest, whereas Accu-Chek Inform II showed wider variability. ISO 15197 evaluation indicated the highest accuracy for Rightest and lower compliance for Accu-Chek Inform II, particularly at glucose levels <200 mg/dL. Conclusion: Although all POCT systems showed strong correlations with the reference method, clinically relevant differences in analytical agreement and accuracy were identified. Rightest demonstrated the best overall performance. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating agreement beyond correlation and support the use of POCT primarily for glucose monitoring rather than definitive diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42699494PMC13543465What 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.