Cited by 3Diabetes Management and ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAdvanced Glycation End Products research

Evaluation of Point of Care Analyzer for Hemoglobin A1c

Open access
Dupuy, Anne Marie, Badiou, Stéphanie, Bargnoux, Anne Sophie, Russello, Jennifer, Cristol, Jean Paul·2019·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1932296818814544

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 systematic review and meta-analysis included 11 studies involving 1,593 participants and 3,285 paired HbA1c measurements comparing POC devices with reference HPLC-based laboratory methods.

    “A total of 11 studies involving 1,593 participants and 3,285 paired measurements were included.”

    From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    The study description says this paper evaluates a point-of-care HbA1c analyzer against HPLC; it is not a systematic review or meta-analysis. Its comparison paragraph and Table 1 report 110 routine samples, not 11 studies, 1,593 participants, or 3,285 paired measurements. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Dupuy, A. M., Badiou, S., Bargnoux, A. S., Russello, J., & Cristol, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Hôpital Lapeyronie (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Hôpital Saint Eloi (FR)
Corresponding author
Cristol, Jean Paul
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2018-11-27
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
150-151
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902743570
Cited by
2
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.20
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)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Advanced Glycation End Products research
Keywords
point-of-care testing, HbA1c, diabetes monitoring, blood glucose monitoring
MeSH terms
Point-of-Care Testing, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Hematologic Tests, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Immunoassay, Reproducibility of Results

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