Evaluation of Three Hemoglobin A1c Point-of-Care Instruments
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A1c is currently used both for monitoring and diagnosing patients with diabetes mellitus. Point-of-care (POC) instruments have been proposed to improve glycemic control of patients with diabetes by providing a rapid result if the analytical performance is acceptable. However, the performance of most current POC devices is unsatisfactory. In this study, we evaluated 3 POC devices: cobas b101 (Roche), Afinion (Alere) and B-Analyst (Menarini). METHODS: The CLSI protocols EP-5 and EP-9 were applied to investigate precision, accuracy, and bias. Bias was compared with an ion-exchange chromatography method (Adams Arkray HA-8160, Menarini) of which the accuracy was assessed by three secondary reference methods (SRMs) and a capillary zone electrophoresis-based laboratory method (Capillarys Flex Piercing 2, Sebia). RESULTS: Using the IFCC units (mmol/mol), total CV's for cobas b101, Afinion and B-Analyst ranged from 2.0 to 3.9%, from 2.3 to 3.7% and from 2.3 to 2.9%, respectively, compared to a total CV ranging from 0.9 to 1.2% for the Adams Arkray HA-8160. A high correlation was found between the HA-8160 and the three POC devices (r = 0.992, r = 0.968, r = 0.998 for cobas b101, Afinion and B-Analyst, respectively). However, all three showed a significant bias of -2.2 mmol/mol, -2.2 mmol/mol and 0.5 mmol/mol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Only the B-Analyst met the current HbA1c quality specifications for precision, whereas cobas b101 and Afinion failed on the low level. Significant bias was observed for all three POC instruments. As low precision and bias are required for both monitoring and diagnosis of diabetes, we believe that POC devices should be carefully selected.
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?
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 [11]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 9
- Authors
- Criel, M., Jonckheere, S., & Langlois, M.
- ORCID
- Jonckheere, Stijn
- Venue
- Clinical Laboratory
- Publisher
- Clinical Laboratory Publications
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 03/2016
- Pages
- 285-91
- ISSN
- 1433-6510 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2460884957
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Laboratory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- 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, point-of-care testing, diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, ion-exchange chromatography, capillary zone electrophoresis, analytical precision, measurement bias
- MeSH terms
- Diabetes Mellitus, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Point-of-Care Systems
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