Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Testing: An Evidence-Based Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of diabetes in Ontario means that there will be growing demand for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing to monitor glycemic control for the management of this chronic disease. Testing HbA1c where patients receive their diabetes care may improve system efficiency if the results from point-of-care HbA1c testing are comparable to those from laboratory HbA1c measurements. OBJECTIVES: To review the correlation between point-of-care HbA1c testing and laboratory HbA1c measurement in patients with diabetes in clinical settings. DATA SOURCES: The literature search included studies published between January 2003 and June 2013. Search terms included glycohemoglobin, hemoglobin A1c, point of care, and diabetes. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if participants had diabetes; if they compared point-of-care HbA1c devices (licensed by Health Canada and available in Canada) with laboratory HbA1c measurement (reference method); if they performed point-of-care HbA1c testing using capillary blood samples (finger pricks) and laboratory HbA1c measurement using venous blood samples within 7 days; and if they reported a correlation coefficient between point-of-care HbA1c and laboratory HbA1c results. RESULTS: Three point-of-care HbA1c devices were reviewed in this analysis: Bayer's A1cNow+, Bio-Rad's In2it, and Siemens' DCA Vantage. Five observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed a positive correlation between point-of-care HbA1c testing and laboratory HbA1c measurement (correlation coefficient, 0.967; 95% confidence interval, 0.960-0.973). LIMITATIONS: Outcomes were limited to the correlation coefficient, as this was a commonly reported measure of analytical performance in the literature. Results should be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias related to selection of participants, reference standards, and the multiple steps involved in POC HbA1c testing. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence showed a positive correlation between point-of-care HbA1c testing and laboratory HbA1c measurement. Five observational studies compared 3 point-of-care HbA1c devices with laboratory HbA1c assays, and all reported strong correlation between the 2 tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".