↓ Skip to main content

The use of dried blood spot sampling for the measurement of HbA1c: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pathology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 114)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of dried blood spot sampling for the measurement of HbA1c: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Clinical Pathology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12907-015-0013-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio A. Mastronardi, Belinda Whittle, Robert Tunningley, Teresa Neeman, Gilberto Paz-Filho

Abstract

The use of dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is an alternative to traditional venous blood collection, and particularly useful for people living in rural and remote areas, and for those who are infirm, house-bound or time-poor. The objective of this study was to assess whether the measurement of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in DBS samples provided comparative and acceptably precise results. Venous and capillary blood samples were collected from 115 adult participants. After proper instruction, each participant punctured his/her own finger and collected capillary blood samples on pieces of a proprietary cellulose filter paper. Each filter paper was subsequently placed inside a breathable envelope, stored at room temperature, and processed on the same day (D0), four (D4), seven (D7) and fourteen (D14) days after collection. HbA1c was measured in duplicates/triplicates in whole venous blood (WB), capillary blood (capDBS) and venous blood placed on the matrix paper (venDBS), by turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay. Intra-assay coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated. DBS values were compared to WB results using linear regression, Bland-Altman plots and cross-validation models. Eleven and 56 patients had type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively. Mean HbA1c levels were 6.22 ± 1.11 % for WB samples (n = 115). The median intra-assay CV was lower than 3 % for WB and capDBS on all days. Results from capDBS and venDBS showed high correlation and agreement to WB results, with narrow 95 % limits of agreement (except for results from D14 samples), as observed in Bland-Altman plots. When capDBS values were applied to equations derived from regression analyses, results approached those of WB values. A cross-validation model showed that capDBS results on D0, D4 and D7 were close to the WB results, with prediction intervals that were narrow enough to be clinically acceptable. The measurement of HbA1c from DBS samples provided results that were comparable to results from WB samples, if measured up to seven days after collection. Intra-assay coefficients of variation were low, results were in agreement with the gold-standard, and prediction intervals were clinically acceptable. The measurement of HbA1c through DBS sampling may be considered in situations where traditional venipuncture is not available. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID ACTRN12613000769785.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 32%
Chemistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 9 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,884,986
of 17,415,680 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pathology
#20
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,015
of 237,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pathology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,415,680 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 114 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them