Advanced Search

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTekce, Buket Kin
dc.contributor.authorTekce, Hikmet
dc.contributor.authorAktas, Gulali
dc.contributor.authorTosun, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-23T19:41:58Z
dc.date.available2021-06-23T19:41:58Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn2146-6505
dc.identifier.issn2147-1894
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5152/jarem.2015.684
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12491/8266
dc.descriptionWOS:000360363900004en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Changes in a device and the modification of measurement methods are frequent issues in medical laboratories. The effects of such modifications on assay results should be investigated. HbA1c is a widely used analyte in treatment and in the follow-up of diabetic patients. We aimed to evaluate the effects of two different assay methods on the detection of the percentage of HbA1c. Methods: We used blood samples with K3-EDTA of 57 diabetic patients who were admitted to our laboratories for the HbA1c assay. HbA1c assays were performed using immunoturbidimetric (Architect C 8000; Abbot Laboratories Inc., Middletown, USA) and ion exchange chromatography (MQ-2000PT; Shanghai Hui Zhong Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Shangai, China) methods. HbA1c assays were repeated two times in both devices. Results were analyzed using MedCalc software. Results: Mean HbA1c level in immunoturbidimetric and ion exchange chromatography assays were 6.6 (min: 4.1 and max: 11.4) and 6.9 (min: 4.9 and max: 11.8), respectively. In the linear regression analysis, we detected an r value of 0.9533 (r<0.975). In Passing-Bablock analysis, we found the following equation, y=0.4+1.0x (intercept CI:-0.22-0.68; slope CI: 0.97-1.09). We did not observe any constant or proportional systematic errors between the assay methods. We found a 0.37 difference between the two methods in the Bland-Altman graphs of mean HbA1c measurements (Bias 5.7%). Conclusion: Researches on the harmonization of HbA1c are still increasing worldwide. However, at present, there are variations in methods and devices. NGSP suggests that the difference between methods should not exceed HbA1c +/- 0.70. We found that mean HbA1c results were higher by 0.37 times in ion exchange chromatography assay compared with those in immunoturbidimetric assay. This difference is within the range suggested by NGSP.en_US
dc.language.isoturen_US
dc.publisherGalenos Yayinciliken_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectHbA1cen_US
dc.subjectstandardizationen_US
dc.subjectmethod comparisonen_US
dc.titleComparing the HbA1c Assay Results of Architect C 8000 and MQ-2000PTen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.department[0-Belirlenecek]en_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-7306-5233en_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthor[0-Belirlenecek]
dc.identifier.doi10.5152/jarem.2015.684
dc.identifier.volume5en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage52en_US
dc.identifier.endpage55en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Academic Research In Medicine-Jaremen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record