Point-of-Care Testing Glucometer in Rapid Assessment Settings: Comparison of 2 Network-Capable Devices in a Referral Hospital.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Giacomo Moretti, Giorgia Degni, Camilla Lamiano, Eugenia Tulli, Andrea Urbani
{"title":"Point-of-Care Testing Glucometer in Rapid Assessment Settings: Comparison of 2 Network-Capable Devices in a Referral Hospital.","authors":"Giacomo Moretti, Giorgia Degni, Camilla Lamiano, Eugenia Tulli, Andrea Urbani","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfaf048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care testing (POCT) glucose meters are essential for rapid glucose monitoring. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of 2 novel network-capable POCT glucometers, CobasPulse (Roche Diagnostic) and StatStrip (Nova Biomedical), in comparison to the Atellica CH 930 Analyzer (Siemens Healthcare), a central laboratory clinical chemistry analyzer, as a reference method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 150 patients' venous whole blood samples were analyzed. Method comparison was performed using Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots. Precision studies were conducted using commercial controls, with assessment of within-run and between-run imprecision by experienced laboratory technicians. Performance was assessed against FDA 2020 benchmarks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Passing-Bablok regression showed accurate overlap for both POCT devices. CobasPulse exhibited a bias of -0.17 mmol/L and Pearson r of 0.982, while StatStrip showed a bias of -0.35 mmol/L and Pearson r of 0.959. Within-run CV for Cobas Pulse (3.3 mmol/L control) was 2.4%, and for StatStrip (3.44 mmol/L control) was 5.2%. Between-run CVs were 2.1% for Cobas Pulse and 3.2% for StatStrip at comparable glucose concentrations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both CobasPulse and StatStrip demonstrated acceptable concordance with the Atellica CH 930 Analyzer. While Cobas Pulse showed slightly better agreement and precision, both devices are suitable for glucose measurements in healthcare settings, providing reliable results and reduced turnaround time, supporting timely clinical decisions for rapid glycemic assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaf048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) glucose meters are essential for rapid glucose monitoring. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of 2 novel network-capable POCT glucometers, CobasPulse (Roche Diagnostic) and StatStrip (Nova Biomedical), in comparison to the Atellica CH 930 Analyzer (Siemens Healthcare), a central laboratory clinical chemistry analyzer, as a reference method.

Methods: A cohort of 150 patients' venous whole blood samples were analyzed. Method comparison was performed using Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots. Precision studies were conducted using commercial controls, with assessment of within-run and between-run imprecision by experienced laboratory technicians. Performance was assessed against FDA 2020 benchmarks.

Results: Passing-Bablok regression showed accurate overlap for both POCT devices. CobasPulse exhibited a bias of -0.17 mmol/L and Pearson r of 0.982, while StatStrip showed a bias of -0.35 mmol/L and Pearson r of 0.959. Within-run CV for Cobas Pulse (3.3 mmol/L control) was 2.4%, and for StatStrip (3.44 mmol/L control) was 5.2%. Between-run CVs were 2.1% for Cobas Pulse and 3.2% for StatStrip at comparable glucose concentrations.

Conclusions: Both CobasPulse and StatStrip demonstrated acceptable concordance with the Atellica CH 930 Analyzer. While Cobas Pulse showed slightly better agreement and precision, both devices are suitable for glucose measurements in healthcare settings, providing reliable results and reduced turnaround time, supporting timely clinical decisions for rapid glycemic assessment.

快速评估设置中的即时检测血糖仪:转诊医院2种网络设备的比较
背景:即时检测(POCT)血糖仪对于快速血糖监测至关重要。本研究旨在评估两种新型网络POCT血糖仪CobasPulse(罗氏诊断公司)和StatStrip(诺瓦生物医学公司)的分析性能,并将其与作为参考方法的中心实验室临床化学分析仪Atellica CH 930分析仪(西门子医疗公司)进行比较。方法:对150例患者静脉全血标本进行分析。方法比较采用passingbablok回归和Bland-Altman图。精确度研究使用商业对照进行,由经验丰富的实验室技术人员评估运行内和运行间的不精确度。根据FDA 2020年基准评估了性能。结果:passingbablok回归显示两种POCT设备的准确重叠。CobasPulse的偏倚为-0.17 mmol/L, Pearson r为0.982;StatStrip的偏倚为-0.35 mmol/L, Pearson r为0.959。Cobas Pulse (3.3 mmol/L对照)的运行内CV为2.4%,StatStrip (3.44 mmol/L对照)的运行内CV为5.2%。在相同的葡萄糖浓度下,Cobas Pulse组的运行间CVs为2.1%,StatStrip组为3.2%。结论:CobasPulse和StatStrip与Atellica CH 930分析仪具有可接受的一致性。虽然Cobas Pulse的一致性和准确性稍好,但这两种设备都适用于医疗保健环境中的血糖测量,提供可靠的结果并缩短周转时间,支持及时的临床决策,以进行快速血糖评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信