Long-Term Performance of Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Assays
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
POC HbA1c devices enable rapid, on-site testing using small blood samples and can be operated by non-laboratory personnel.
“These devices enable rapid, on-site testing using small blood samples obtained via finger prick or venous sampling, and can be operated by non-laboratory personnel (7).”
From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
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
- ORCID
- Rendell, Marc
- Venue
- Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1308-1315
- ISSN
- 1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5094320
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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