JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 22 (4): 461-463 (2009)
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.04.090057
© 2009 American Board of Family Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Neale, A. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Neale, A. V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Research Letter

Comparison of Point of Care and Laboratory HbA1c Analysis: A MetroNet Study

Kendra L. Schwartz, MD, MSPH, Joseph Monsur, BS, Adnan Hammad, PhD, Monina G. Bartoces, PhD and Anne Victoria Neale, PhD, MPH

Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit (KLS, JM, MGB, AVN)
Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) Community Health and Research Center, Dearborn (AH), Michigan

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Anne Victoria Neale, PhD, MPH, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, 101 E. Alexandrine, Detroit, Michigan, 48201 (E-mail: vneale{at}med.wayne.edu)

Background: Evaluating new technology in clinical practice is an important component of translating research into practice. We considered the feasibility of using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived point of care (POC) glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) methodology in busy family medicine centers by comparing the results of POC HbA1c and laboratory analysis results.

Methods: Recruited from 5 MetroNet practices, the participants were adult diabetic patients having blood samples drawn for laboratory analysis of HbA1c. Each agreed to provide a capillary blood sample for POC testing.

Results: With data on 99 paired samples, the POC method yielded a mean HbA1c of 7.38%, which was equivalent to the mean of 7.53% produced with all combined standard laboratory analyses. The Pearson correlation between POC and the laboratory analysis test results was 0.884 (P < .001). POC test sensitivity was 81.8% and specificity was 93.2%. Eighteen percent of patients with an HbA1c ≥7% by laboratory analysis were not identified as such by the POC test.

Conclusions: Before adopting a POC methodology, practices are encouraged to review its feasibility in the context of the office routine, and also to conduct periodic comparisons of the accuracy of POC test results compared with those from laboratory analysis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
D. E. Bruns and J. C. Boyd
Few Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Assay Methods Meet Clinical Needs
Clin. Chem., January 1, 2010; 56(1): 4 - 6.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Board of Family Medicine.