Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin

Charles W. Slemenda, David Marrero, S. Edwin Fineberg, Patricia S. Moore, Reid Gibson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) determined from capillary blood samples on paper strips with a standard microcolumn technique in a cross-sectional observational study with laboratories blinded to duplicate samples. Both the standard and the filter strip laboratories were provided with 80 uniquely identified blood samples from 40 individuals. Each laboratory ran duplicate analyses on each sample, yielding 160 GHb values. The within-laboratory correlations between blinded duplicates were 0.98 for the standard (microcolumn technique) and 0.94 for the filter paper (affinity technique) laboratories. The between-laboratory correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.77. When classifying patients by quartile of glycemic control, the laboratories agreed on 60% of the patients. In an effort to identify sources of between-laboratory variability, varying quantities of blood were applied to strips and reanalyzed. Five microliter drops always yielded inflated estimates of GHb. These data suggest that the estimates of GHb obtained from mail-in paper strips, although internally consistent, differ in important ways from standard laboratory values, reemphasizing the need for caution in the interpretation of interlaboratory and intermethod comparisons.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)886-888
Number of pages3
JournalDiabetes Care
Volume13
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 1990

Fingerprint

Glycosylated Hemoglobin A
Postal Service
Observational Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism

Cite this

Slemenda, C. W., Marrero, D., Fineberg, S. E., Moore, P. S., & Gibson, R. (1990). Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin. Diabetes Care, 13(8), 886-888.

Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin. / Slemenda, Charles W.; Marrero, David; Fineberg, S. Edwin; Moore, Patricia S.; Gibson, Reid.

In: Diabetes Care, Vol. 13, No. 8, 08.1990, p. 886-888.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Slemenda, CW, Marrero, D, Fineberg, SE, Moore, PS & Gibson, R 1990, 'Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin', Diabetes Care, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 886-888.
Slemenda, Charles W. ; Marrero, David ; Fineberg, S. Edwin ; Moore, Patricia S. ; Gibson, Reid. / Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin. In: Diabetes Care. 1990 ; Vol. 13, No. 8. pp. 886-888.
@article{3a4bdac1149e4d578b8ace00c29fb173,
title = "Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin",
abstract = "We compared glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) determined from capillary blood samples on paper strips with a standard microcolumn technique in a cross-sectional observational study with laboratories blinded to duplicate samples. Both the standard and the filter strip laboratories were provided with 80 uniquely identified blood samples from 40 individuals. Each laboratory ran duplicate analyses on each sample, yielding 160 GHb values. The within-laboratory correlations between blinded duplicates were 0.98 for the standard (microcolumn technique) and 0.94 for the filter paper (affinity technique) laboratories. The between-laboratory correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.77. When classifying patients by quartile of glycemic control, the laboratories agreed on 60{\%} of the patients. In an effort to identify sources of between-laboratory variability, varying quantities of blood were applied to strips and reanalyzed. Five microliter drops always yielded inflated estimates of GHb. These data suggest that the estimates of GHb obtained from mail-in paper strips, although internally consistent, differ in important ways from standard laboratory values, reemphasizing the need for caution in the interpretation of interlaboratory and intermethod comparisons.",
author = "Slemenda, {Charles W.} and David Marrero and Fineberg, {S. Edwin} and Moore, {Patricia S.} and Reid Gibson",
year = "1990",
month = "8",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "886--888",
journal = "Diabetes Care",
issn = "1935-5548",
publisher = "American Diabetes Association Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mail-in paper strip vs. microcolumn technique for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin

AU - Slemenda, Charles W.

AU - Marrero, David

AU - Fineberg, S. Edwin

AU - Moore, Patricia S.

AU - Gibson, Reid

PY - 1990/8

Y1 - 1990/8

N2 - We compared glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) determined from capillary blood samples on paper strips with a standard microcolumn technique in a cross-sectional observational study with laboratories blinded to duplicate samples. Both the standard and the filter strip laboratories were provided with 80 uniquely identified blood samples from 40 individuals. Each laboratory ran duplicate analyses on each sample, yielding 160 GHb values. The within-laboratory correlations between blinded duplicates were 0.98 for the standard (microcolumn technique) and 0.94 for the filter paper (affinity technique) laboratories. The between-laboratory correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.77. When classifying patients by quartile of glycemic control, the laboratories agreed on 60% of the patients. In an effort to identify sources of between-laboratory variability, varying quantities of blood were applied to strips and reanalyzed. Five microliter drops always yielded inflated estimates of GHb. These data suggest that the estimates of GHb obtained from mail-in paper strips, although internally consistent, differ in important ways from standard laboratory values, reemphasizing the need for caution in the interpretation of interlaboratory and intermethod comparisons.

AB - We compared glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) determined from capillary blood samples on paper strips with a standard microcolumn technique in a cross-sectional observational study with laboratories blinded to duplicate samples. Both the standard and the filter strip laboratories were provided with 80 uniquely identified blood samples from 40 individuals. Each laboratory ran duplicate analyses on each sample, yielding 160 GHb values. The within-laboratory correlations between blinded duplicates were 0.98 for the standard (microcolumn technique) and 0.94 for the filter paper (affinity technique) laboratories. The between-laboratory correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.77. When classifying patients by quartile of glycemic control, the laboratories agreed on 60% of the patients. In an effort to identify sources of between-laboratory variability, varying quantities of blood were applied to strips and reanalyzed. Five microliter drops always yielded inflated estimates of GHb. These data suggest that the estimates of GHb obtained from mail-in paper strips, although internally consistent, differ in important ways from standard laboratory values, reemphasizing the need for caution in the interpretation of interlaboratory and intermethod comparisons.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025043836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025043836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2209325

AN - SCOPUS:0025043836

VL - 13

SP - 886

EP - 888

JO - Diabetes Care

JF - Diabetes Care

SN - 1935-5548

IS - 8

ER -