Cited by 10Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDiabetes Management and ResearchAdvanced Glycation End Products research

HbA1c-testing: Evaluation of two point-of-care analysers

Open access
Dubach, Irina L., Christ, Emanuel R., Diem, Peter·2019·Primary Care Diabetes

Abstract

Background HbA 1c is a critical parameter for the medical management of patients with diabetes mellitus. Interventions that reduce HbA 1c levels lead to a diminution of microvascular complications. For two decades, point of care testing (POCT) methods have been regularly used to measure HbA 1c. The results significantly impact on the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and the accuracy of the results is critical. It is important to know the performance of common methods of HbA 1c measurements in daily life. We, therefore, aimed at evaluating the accuracy of two different analysers especially developed for POCT and compared them to a reference method. Methods We prospectively tested two widely used POCT methods to measure HbA 1c, namely Afinion™ AS100 Analyzer (Axis-Shield, Oslo Norway) and DCA Vantage™ Analyzer (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Tarrytown NY, US) in venous samples of 100 patients. As a reference method, we used the high-performance liquid chromatography method G8 HPLC used in the Biochemistry Laboratory of the Inselspital Bern. The National Glycohaemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) has certificated all methods used in this study. The comparability and degree of agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plot. Results The HbA 1c levels ranged from 33 to 116 mmol/mol (5.2-12.8%), 31-122 mmol/mol (5.0-13.3%) and 30-119 mmol/mol (4.9-13%) for Afinion™, DCA Vantage™ and G8 HPLC Analyzer, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were between -0.84 and +0.30 for the Afinion™ and -0.71 and +0.29 for DCA Vantage™. The results of both POCT were significantly lower with a bias of -0.27% and -0.21% (p < 0.0001) for Afinion™ and DCA Vantage™ Analyzer, respectively. Conclusions The POCT methods tested in this study showed a good correlation with the laboratory reference method, however, with an overall negative bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pcd.2019.05.007

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dubach, I. L., Christ, E. R., & Diem, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Diem, Peter
Venue
Primary Care Diabetes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
583-587
ISSN
1751-9918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2948995452
Cited by
9
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Primary care diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
University Clinic for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Clinical Nutrition of Inselspital Bern, Switzerland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Advanced Glycation End Products research
Keywords
HbA1c, point-of-care testing, measurement accuracy, diabetes mellitus, venous blood samples, method comparison
MeSH terms
Point-of-Care Testing, Diabetes Mellitus, Equipment Design, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Prospective Studies, Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Point-of-Care Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review