The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Determination of glycosylated hemoglobin by affinity chromatography: comparison with colorimetric and ion-exchange methods, and effects of common interferences.
Abstract
An affinity-chromatographic method for determination of glycosylated hemoglobin (Anal. Lett. 14: 649-661, 1981) is compared with the thiobarbituric acid colorimetric (I) (Clin. Chem. 27: 669-672, 1981) and the ion-exchange liquid-chromatographic (II) (Diabetes 29: 623-628, 1980) methods. A correlation of 0.98 was obtained for the affinity method vs II and 0.97 for affinity vs I (n = 51). The within-run CV was 1.9% for specimens from non-diabetic individuals and 1.0% for those from diabetics. The respective between-run CVs were 3.4% and 2.4%. Failure to remove "labile" glucose adducts by 5-h incubation of erythrocytes in isotonic saline (37 degrees C) contributed an average error of 13.1% for II, 5.4% for I, and 1.6% for the affinity method. Affinity chromatography gave a decrease of 0.1-0.2% glycosylated hemoglobin for each 1.0 degree C temperature increase between 18 and 27 degrees C. Varying the pH of the wash buffer used in the affinity procedure from 7.75 to 8.25 (pH 8.0 optimum) produced at net change of 0.5% in glycosylated hemoglobin with one diabetic specimen. Using the affinity method, we determined the reference interval for glycosylated hemoglobin in 124 apparently healthy individuals to be 5.3 to 7.5% (mean 6.36%, SD 0.55%). Rechromatography by II and isoelectric focusing analysis of the fractions obtained by the affinity separation revealed a substantial population of glycosylated hemoglobins not measured by II. The affinity method offers a rapid, simple, precise, and accurate alternative to methods currently in use and gives substantial freedom from many common interferences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Assessing the Effects of Physician-Patient Interactions on the Outcomes of Chronic Disease
Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010 · Cited by 2,043
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. H., Ware, J. E., Yano, E. M., & Frank, H. J. L. (1988) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02595921 · Cited by 1,119
Li, D., Chen, Y., & Liu, Z. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c5cs00013k · Cited by 586
Stress Management Improves Long-Term Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes
Surwit, R. S., van Tilburg, M. A. L., Zucker, N., McCaskill, C. C., Parekh, P., Feinglos, M. N., Edwards, C. L., Williams, P., & Lane, J. D. (2002) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.25.1.30 · Cited by 360
Retinal microvascular abnormalities and 10-year cardiovascular mortality
Wong, T. Y., Klein, R., Nieto, F. J., Klein, B. E. K., Sharrett, A. R., Meuer, S. M., Hubbard, L. D., & Tielsch, J. M. (2003) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(03)00084-8 · Cited by 347
Metadata
- Authors
- Klenk, D. C., Hermanson, G. T., Krohn, R. I., Fujimoto, E. K., Mallia, A. K., Smith, P. K., England, J. D., Wiedmeyer, H. M., Little, R. R., & Goldstein, D. E.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1982-10-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2088-2094
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W1869299932
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determination of glycosylated hemoglobin by affinity chromatography: comparison with colorimetric and ion-exchange methods, and effects of common interferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/28.10.2088
- The paper
- Klenk, D. C., Hermanson, G. T., Krohn, R. I., Fujimoto, E. K., Mallia, A. K., Smith, P. K., England, J. D., Wiedmeyer, H. M., Little, R. R., & Goldstein, D. E. (1982). Determination of glycosylated hemoglobin by affinity chromatography: comparison with colorimetric and ion-exchange methods, and effects of common interferences. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/28.10.2088
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
