Cited by 30Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersDiabetes Management and Research

HbA1c analysis by capillary electrophoresis – comparison with chromatography and an immunological method

Open access
Klingenberg, Olav, Furuset, Torill, Hestbråten, Camilla R., Hallberg, Marit H., Steiro, Astrid, Orset, Iren R., Berg, Jens P.·2017·Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has become an even more important analyte for clinical laboratories during recent years with the introduction of its diagnostic use for diabetes mellitus. Several different analytical principles can be used, each with their advantages and disadvantages. AIM: We wanted to compare Sebia Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing (Capillarys) with our routine HbA1c methods, which were an HPLC method (Tosoh G7) and an immunoassay (Tina-Quant on Roche Modular P) by analysing a large clinical material. Furthermore, we investigated sample stability. METHODS: HbA1c analysis was performed in parallel by all three methods for more than 600 patient samples including common and some rare haemoglobin variants, as well as for several controls, some with set target values. Sample stability at room temperature and refrigerated was assessed for up to seven days. RESULTS: Capillarys produced generally somewhat lower HbA1c values than both comparison methods, apparently due to positive bias for the comparison methods. Leaving out samples with haemoglobin variants, we found a mean bias (95% CI) for Capillarys compared to Tosoh G7 (without factorization) and Modular of -0.39 (-0.40 to -0.38) and -0.16 (-0.17 to -0.14) % HbA1c, respectively. HbA1c results were similar between instruments for samples from dialysis patients and for samples with heterozygous common haemoglobin variants, except that Tosoh G7 reported too low results in the presence of Hb E. For heterozygous Hb Raleigh, Capillarys and the immunoassay gave similar results. CONCLUSION: Capillarys is a convenient instrument for routine HbA1c analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00365513.2017.1338747

Cites

11 of 11 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2012, Letter from NKK (Norwegian Clinical Chemistry EQA Program) 29th of February, 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klingenberg, O., Furuset, T., Hestbråten, C. R., Hallberg, M. H., Steiro, A., Orset, I. R., & Berg, J. P.
Affiliations
Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Klingenberg, Olav
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation
Published
2017-06-23
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
458-464
ISSN
  • 0036-5513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1502-7686
OpenAlex
W2700133007
Cited by
29
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Hemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
HbA1c, capillary electrophoresis, HPLC, immunoassay, method comparison, measurement bias, sample stability, hemoglobin variants, HbE, dialysis patients, diabetes diagnosis
MeSH terms
Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Immunoassay, Regression Analysis, Temperature, Electrophoresis, Capillary

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