The national glycohemoglobin standardization program: over 20 years of improving hemoglobin A1c measurement
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood is integral to and essential for the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus. HbA1c reflects the mean blood glucose concentration over the preceding 8 to 12 weeks. Although the clinical value of HbA1c was initially limited by large differences in results among various methods, the investment of considerable effort to implement standardization has brought about a marked improvement in analysis. CONTENT: The focus of this review is on the substantial progress that has been achieved in enhancing the accuracy and, therefore, the clinical value of HbA1c assays. SUMMARY: The interactions between the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program and manufacturers of HbA1c methods have been instrumental in standardizing HbA1c. Proficiency testing using whole blood has allowed accuracy-based assessment of methods in individual clinical laboratories that has made an important contribution to improving the HbA1c measurement in patient samples. These initiatives, supported by the efforts of the IFCC network, have led to a continuing enhancement of HbA1c methods. Many of the factors that previously influenced HbA1c results independently of blood glucose have been eliminated from most modern methods. These include carbamylation, labile intermediates, and common hemoglobin variants. Nevertheless, some factors (e.g., race and aging) may alter HbA1c interpretation, but whether these differences have clinical implications remains contentious. HbA1c has a fundamental role in the diagnosis and management of diabetes. Ongoing improvements in HbA1c measurement and quality will further enhance the clinical value of this analyte.
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
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.
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?
A previous meta-analysis noted a non-significant trend toward less negative bias over time for the DCA device (coefficient 0.01% HbA1c per year; P=0.081), with no significant temporal effect for other devices.
“This observation aligns with a previous meta-analysis which noted a non-significant trend toward less negative bias over time for the DCA device (coefficient 0.01% HbA1c per year; P=0.081), suggesting possible calibration improvements, although no significant temporal effect was observed for other devices (10,36,37).”
From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
The “Status of HbA1c Measurement” section reports that mean bias decreased over time for most methods, supporting the broad observation of improvement. It does not report a DCA-specific trend, the coefficient or P value, or a finding that other devices had no significant temporal effect; the cited work is a review of standardization rather than the specified meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSince initiation of the NGSP in 1996, the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey has documented a steady improvement in comparability of glycated hemoglobin values among laboratories, both within method and between method.
“Since initiation of the NGSP in 1996, the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey has documented a steady improvement in comparability of GHb values among laboratories, both within method and between method (357,358,361).”
From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [357]
Since 1996, the NGSP has standardized glycated hemoglobin test results among laboratories to DCCT-equivalent HbA1c values and focused on improving worldwide assay performance.
“Since 1996, the NGSP, initiated under the auspices of the AACC and endorsed by the ADA, has standardized GHb test results among laboratories to DCCT-equivalent HbA 1c values (357-359) and focused on improving worldwide assay performance.”
From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [357]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 161
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [7]World Health Organization. Use of Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: Abbreviated Report of a WHO consultation http://www.who.int/diabetes/publications/report-hba1c_2011.pdf?ua=1 (Accessed June 2018). 26158184
- [14]Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices Off J L 1998; 331: 1– 37.
- Authors
- Little, R. R., Rohlfing, C., & Sacks, D. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Little, Randie R
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-07-01
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 839-848
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- PMC
- PMC6693326
- OpenAlex
- W2903178948
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 1.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- NIH/NIDDK (1UC4DK096587-01)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Keywords
- HbA1c, assay standardization, diabetes mellitus, proficiency testing, IFCC, method accuracy, carbamoylation, hemoglobin variants, whole blood analysis
- MeSH terms
- Blood Chemical Analysis, Calibration, Certification, Diabetes Mellitus, Government Programs, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, International Cooperation, Laboratory Proficiency Testing, Clinical Laboratory Services
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