Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 206

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The IFCC Reference Measurement System for HbA1c: A 6-Year Progress Report

Weykamp, Cas, John, W Garry, Mosca, Andrea, Hoshino, Tadao, Little, Randie, Jeppsson, Jan-Olof, Goodall, Ian, Miedema, Kor, Myers, Gary, Reinauer, Hans, Sacks, David B, Slingerland, Robbert, Siebelder, Carla·2008·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: The IFCC Reference Measurement System for hemoglobin (Hb)A1c (IFCC-RM) has been developed within the framework of metrologic traceability and is embedded in a network of 14 reference laboratories. This paper describes the outcome of 12 intercomparison studies (periodic evaluations to control essential elements of the IFCC-RM). Methods: Each study included: unknown samples (to test individual network laboratories); known samples (controls); recently manufactured calibrators (to check calculated assigned value); stored calibrators (to test stability) and a calibration-set (to calibrate the IFCC-RM). The unknown samples are measured by use of the IFCC-RM and the designated comparison methods [DCMs; the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) in the US, Japanese Diabetes Society/Japanese Society for Clinical Chemistry (JDS/JSCC) in Japan, and Mono-S in Sweden] are used to investigate the stability of the Master Equation (ME), the relationship between IFCC-RM and DCMs. Results: A total of 105 IFCC-RM data sets were evaluated: 95 were approved, 5 were not, and for 5 no data were submitted. Trend analysis of the MEs, expressed as change in percentage HbA1c per year, revealed 0.000% (NGSP, not significant), −0.030%, (JDS/JSCC; significant) and −0.016% (Mono-S; not significant). Evaluation of long-term performance revealed no systematic change over time; 2 laboratories showed significant bias, 1 poor reproducibility. The mean HbA1c determined by laboratories performing mass spectrometry (MS) was the same as the mean determined by laboratories using capillary electrophoresis (CE), but the reproducibility at laboratories using CE was better. One batch of new calibrators was not approved. All stored calibrators were stable. Conclusion: A sound reference system is in place to ensure continuity and stability of the analytical anchor for HbA1c.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2007.097402

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 206

Metadata

Authors
Weykamp, C., John, W. G., Mosca, A., Hoshino, T., Little, R., Jeppsson, J.-O., Goodall, I., Miedema, K., Myers, G., Reinauer, H., Sacks, D. B., Slingerland, R., & Siebelder, C.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
240-248
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2157828221
Cited by
206
References
2
FWCI
12.47
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: The IFCC Reference Measurement System for HbA1c: A 6-Year Progress Report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2007.097402
The paper
Weykamp, C., John, W. G., Mosca, A., Hoshino, T., Little, R., Jeppsson, J.-O., Goodall, I., Miedema, K., Myers, G., Reinauer, H., Sacks, D. B., Slingerland, R., & Siebelder, C. (2008). The IFCC Reference Measurement System for HbA1c: A 6-Year Progress Report. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.097402

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.