Cited by 17Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDiabetes Management and ResearchAdvanced Glycation End Products research

Long-Term Performance of Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Assays

Open access
Paknikar, Sujaytha, Sarmah, Rohan, Sivaganeshan, Losika, Welke, Adam, Rizzo, Al, Larson, Kirk, Rendell, Marc·2016·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care (POC) testing of HbA1c is used as a time-efficient tool to improve treatment and management planning for diabetes in the clinic setting. HbA1c values are the basis for monitoring ongoing response to treatment and to make adjustments to diabetes therapy. Yet, there is ongoing controversy as to the accuracy of POC assays. Diabetes is a lifelong disease, so comparability of results over a long period of time is needed to follow the response to treatment. Methods: We compared the Afinion™ automated boronate affinity assay and the DCA Vantage immunoassay-based POC techniques to the Tosoh G8 and Bio-Rad Variant II ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) central laboratory methods in a study lasting 3 years. College of American Pathology Survey results and American Proficiency testing were utilized to assess the external validity of the POC techniques. Results: Despite high correlations among the 4 techniques, there were significant and variable differences obtained over time. The Biorad values varied from 0.1 to 0.4% higher than the Afinion values. The DCA results were usually higher than the Afinion values, but fell below the Afinion results in the last 6 months of our study. Both POC techniques gave systematically lower values than the Tosoh measurements, and both the POC and the central laboratory measurements showed variable differences from the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values over the duration of this study. Conclusions: All who rely on POC methods as well as on central laboratory measurement of HbA1c must understand the potential limitations of these assays. The assessment of diabetes blood sugar control should proceed from the evaluation of HbA1c combined with review of plasma glucose and of self-monitored blood glucose values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1932296816645362

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 17

Authors
Paknikar, S., Sarmah, R., Sivaganeshan, L., Welke, A., Rizzo, A., Larson, K., & Rendell, M.
Affiliations
Creighton Diabetes Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Corresponding author
Rendell, Marc
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2016-07-10
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
1308-1315
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2343034402
Cited by
17
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Creighton Digital Repository (CDR) (submittedVersion)
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
point-of-care testing, HbA1c, diabetes management, assay accuracy, long-term performance, ion-exchange HPLC, central laboratory comparison, generalizability, proficiency testing, glycemic control
MeSH terms
Point-of-Care Testing, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Diabetes Mellitus, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Immunoassay

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