Comparison of point-of-care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Biomedical reports Pub Date : 2026-02-13 eCollection Date: 2026-04-01 DOI:10.3892/br.2026.2120
Yongzhong Wei, Mingze Gu, Yuqing Ren, Zhongshuang Hu
{"title":"Comparison of point-of-care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yongzhong Wei, Mingze Gu, Yuqing Ren, Zhongshuang Hu","doi":"10.3892/br.2026.2120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), also known as glycated hemoglobin, is a cornerstone biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring diabetes. While high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the reference standard, point-of-care (POC) devices are increasingly used due to convenience and rapid results. However, concerns remain about their analytical accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between POC HbA1c devices and laboratory HPLC-based methods. A total of 11 studies involving 1,593 participants and 3,285 paired measurements were included. The pooled mean difference between POC and HPLC was 0.01% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.08 to 0.11%; 95% prediction interval (PI), -0.443 to 0.471%; P=0.779], well within the clinically acceptable margin of ±0.5%. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed and extensive subgroup analyses across device model, analytical principle, and study characteristics did not fully explain this variability. Notably, some platforms, such as lateral flow immunoassays, exhibited larger biases approaching thresholds relevant to clinical decision-making. Although most POC devices demonstrated acceptable agreement, results highlight the importance of careful validation and interpretation. Future research should prioritize standardized protocols, comparative studies across platforms, and assessment in real-world decentralized settings to enhance confidence in POC HbA1c measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":8863,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical reports","volume":"24 4","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12977185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2026.2120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), also known as glycated hemoglobin, is a cornerstone biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring diabetes. While high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the reference standard, point-of-care (POC) devices are increasingly used due to convenience and rapid results. However, concerns remain about their analytical accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between POC HbA1c devices and laboratory HPLC-based methods. A total of 11 studies involving 1,593 participants and 3,285 paired measurements were included. The pooled mean difference between POC and HPLC was 0.01% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.08 to 0.11%; 95% prediction interval (PI), -0.443 to 0.471%; P=0.779], well within the clinically acceptable margin of ±0.5%. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed and extensive subgroup analyses across device model, analytical principle, and study characteristics did not fully explain this variability. Notably, some platforms, such as lateral flow immunoassays, exhibited larger biases approaching thresholds relevant to clinical decision-making. Although most POC devices demonstrated acceptable agreement, results highlight the importance of careful validation and interpretation. Future research should prioritize standardized protocols, comparative studies across platforms, and assessment in real-world decentralized settings to enhance confidence in POC HbA1c measurement.

即时护理HbA1c设备与实验室HPLC方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c),也被称为糖化血红蛋白,是诊断和监测糖尿病的基础生物标志物。虽然高效液相色谱(HPLC)是参考标准,但由于方便和快速的结果,护理点(POC)设备的使用越来越多。然而,对其分析准确性的担忧仍然存在。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了POC HbA1c设备与基于实验室hplc的方法之间的一致性。共有11项研究涉及1593名参与者和3285对测量。POC和HPLC的合并平均差异为0.01%[95%可信区间(CI), -0.08 ~ 0.11%;95%预测区间(PI)为-0.443 ~ 0.471%;P=0.779],完全在临床可接受的±0.5%范围内。然而,观察到大量的异质性,广泛的亚组分析跨设备模型,分析原理和研究特征并不能完全解释这种变异性。值得注意的是,一些平台,如侧流免疫测定,显示出更大的偏差,接近与临床决策相关的阈值。尽管大多数POC设备显示出可接受的一致性,但结果强调了仔细验证和解释的重要性。未来的研究应优先考虑标准化方案、跨平台比较研究和现实世界分散环境下的评估,以增强对POC HbA1c测量的信心。
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
Biomedical reports
Biomedical reports MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Biomedical Reports is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal, dedicated to publishing research across all fields of biology and medicine, including pharmacology, pathology, gene therapy, genetics, microbiology, neurosciences, infectious diseases, molecular cardiology and molecular surgery. The journal provides a home for original research, case reports and review articles.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书