Cited by 9Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDiabetes Management and ResearchScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Evaluation of Three Hemoglobin A1c Point-of-Care Instruments

Criel, Marieke, Jonckheere, Stijn, Langlois, Michel·2016·Clinical Laboratory

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

Crossref · 10.7754/clin.lab.2015.150301

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 9

Authors
Criel, M., Jonckheere, S., & Langlois, M.
Venue
Clinical Laboratory
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