Abstract
Purpose: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an essential marker for assessment of glycemic control in diabetes patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between different HbA1c methods. Methodology: We used blood samples to compare HbA1c results analyzed with Capillarys 3 Tera, Roche Tina-Quant HbA1c Gen 3, BioRad Variant II Turbo (3 sites), Mono S® and Abbott Architect enzymatic method. The comparisons were made as paired instrument comparisons with Capillarys 3 Tera. Results: The linear correlations between the HbA1c methods were as follows: Cobas 6000 = 0.982 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 0.975, R² = 0.994; Architect c8000 = 0.982 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 1.064, R² = 0.994; Mono S® = 0.916 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 3.397, R² = 0.965; BioRad Variant II Turbo = 0.923 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 4.062, R² = 0.990; Tosoh G8 = 0.963 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 3.895, R² = 0.996. Conclusions: The different instrument platforms showed the best agreement in the 50-70 mmol/mol interval. Above and below this range the methods separated into 2 groups, one consisting of Capillarys 3 Tera, Roche Tina-Quant and Abbott enzymatic method and the other group consisting of BioRad Variant II Turbo, Tosoh G8 and Mono S®.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and its Complications
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
