ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of enzymatic assay for HbA1c measurement with high performance liquid chromatography.
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
HbA1c is an approved test for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes. Several assays are in use worldwide based on chromatography, cation-exchange, enzymatic and immunological principles. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) is regarded as the gold standard method while other assays including enzymatic assays (EA) are shown to have high efficiency and comparable results. In this study, the HbA1c levels were measured using HPLC and EA and compared for concordance and agreement. HbA1c levels were measured on blood samples of 1014 participants regardless of age, gender and type of diabetes. Samples were run on both assays as per manufacturer guidelines and standard operating procedures. Data analysed using GraphPad Prism for Pearson's correlation, simple linear regression, measures of diagnostic accuracy and Bland Altman analysis. Participants with mean age of 53.49 ± 13.94 year and 50.89% females were included. Mean HbA1c was slightly higher for HPLC overall and in females but showed a high correlation with correlation coefficient of 0.97. Correlation between HbA1c on two assays was strong positive for total samples and diabetic samples whereas moderate to weak in non-diabetics and pre-diabetics. HbA1c mean difference was within the acceptable range of bias for all samples hence suggestive of a good agreement between two assays. Diagnostic accuracy measures were slightly lower in HbA1c measured on EA in pre-diabetic and diabetic range HbA1c. Our findings show that the HbA1c levels measured using both assays show a strong association and agreement of bias. However, Further studies are recommended for comparison of pre-diabetic HbA1c range between assays while taking interference factors into account.
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.