Literature DB >> 27558572

A Comparison Study Between Point-of-Care Testing Systems and Central Laboratory for Determining Blood Glucose in Venous Blood.

Huiping Wei1, Fang Lan1, Qitian He1, Haiwei Li1, Fuyong Zhang1, Xue Qin1, Shan Li1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disease that is characterized by hyperglycemia. Blood glucose (BG) is helpful for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes and an important part of the management of diabetes. Point-of-care testing (POCT) is generally used by patients themselves or medical personnel to monitor BG. The objective of this article was to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of POCT on venous blood samples and compare it with the central laboratory system to determine the reliability of POCT measurement results as diagnostic criteria.
METHOD: A total of 162 venous whole blood samples were pooled in this study, which included different concentrations and were determined by three POCT systems randomly. The results were compared with the central laboratory system, which uses the Glucose GOD-PAP method (HITACHI 7600-120). The accuracy was evaluated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013. RESULT: Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed three POCT systems that were comparable with the reference method (0.65, 95% CI: -0.57 to 1.86, Y = -0.11 + 0.95X for ACCU-CHEK® Performa; 0.40, 95% CI: -1.3 to 2.1, Y = 0.036 + 0.96X for ACCU-CHEK® Active; 0.70, 95% CI: -0.44 to 1.83, Y = -0.073 + 0.95X for OneTouch ® UltraVue). According to ISO 15197:2013, all POCT systems showed 100% of the results within 0.83 mmol/l (15 mg/dl) at BG concentrations <5.55 mmol/l (100 mg/dl); 92%, 89.2%, and 95.7% of the measurement results within 15% at BG concentrations ≥5.55 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) for ACCU-CHEK® Performa, ACCU-CHEK® Active, and OneTouch® UltraVue, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The POCT system cannot replace the central laboratory system as a provider of a standard result in clinical diagnosis. It can only be used as a screening test.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; blood glucose; clinical laboratory; point-of-care testing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27558572      PMCID: PMC6817021          DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal        ISSN: 0887-8013            Impact factor:   2.352


  12 in total

1.  System accuracy evaluation of systems for point-of-care testing of blood glucose: a comparison of a patient-use system with six professional-use systems.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Stefan Pleus; Annette Baumstark; Manuela Link; Erhard Stolberg; Cornelia Haug; Jochen Sieber
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Prevalence of diabetes among men and women in China.

Authors:  Wenying Yang; Juming Lu; Jianping Weng; Weiping Jia; Linong Ji; Jianzhong Xiao; Zhongyan Shan; Jie Liu; Haoming Tian; Qiuhe Ji; Dalong Zhu; Jiapu Ge; Lixiang Lin; Li Chen; Xiaohui Guo; Zhigang Zhao; Qiang Li; Zhiguang Zhou; Guangliang Shan; Jiang He
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Performance of glucose dehydrogenase-and glucose oxidase-based blood glucose meters at high altitude and low temperature.

Authors:  Daniel Oberg; Claes-Göran Ostenson
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 4.  Quality of glucose measurement with blood glucose meters at the point-of-care: relevance of interfering factors.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 5.  Point-of-care testing: where is the evidence? A systematic survey.

Authors:  Valentina Pecoraro; Luca Germagnoli; Giuseppe Banfi
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Effect of ambient temperature on analytical performance of self-monitoring blood glucose systems.

Authors:  Kari Nerhus; Pål Rustad; Sverre Sandberg
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 7.  [Point-of-care testing in preclinical emergency medicine].

Authors:  M Möckel; J Searle
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 8.  Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing.

Authors:  Andrew St John; Christopher P Price
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2014-08

9.  Documentation of quality control and operator training at point-of-care testing: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 106 institutions.

Authors:  Kathryn S Dyhdalo; Peter J Howanitz; David S Wilkinson; Rhona J Souers; Bruce A Jones
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.534

10.  Factors interfering with the accuracy of five blood glucose meters used in Chinese hospitals.

Authors:  Hong Lv; Guo-jun Zhang; Xi-xiong Kang; Hui Yuan; Yan-wei Lv; Wen-wen Wang; Rollins Randall
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.352

View more
  2 in total

1.  Utility of point-of-care vs reference laboratory testing for the evaluation of glucose levels.

Authors:  O M Andriankaja; F J Muñoz-Torres; J L Vergara; C M Pérez; K Joshipura
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.359

2.  Assessment of the performance of blood glucose monitoring systems for monitoring dysglycaemia in neonatal patients.

Authors:  Yin Ba; Jin Xu; Lin Yuan; Haiyan Zhu; Yipei Yang; Mei Mei Lam; Shulian Zhang; Mili Xiao; Jiayin Xu; Rong Zhang; Chao Chen
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2018-10-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.