Evaluasi Klinis Presisi POCT dan Chemistry Analyzer dalam Pemeriksaan Glukosa Darah Sewaktu Pasien Diabetes Melitus
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global health problem with a steadily increasing prevalence, including in Indonesia. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) 2021 reported that Indonesia ranks fifth worldwide with approximately 19.5 million people living with DM, projected to exceed 28 million by 2045. This situation highlights blood glucose testing as a key indicator for both diagnosis and therapy monitoring. Validation of measurement methods, either Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) or chemistry analyzer as the laboratory standard, is required to ensure result reliability before clinical implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the precision, agreement, and linear relationship between POCT and chemistry analyzer in random blood glucose testing of patients with type 2 DM. An experimental comparative design was conducted on 30 patients at Mokoyurli General Hospital, Central Sulawesi. Each blood sample was analyzed using both methods with three repetitions.The results showed mean %CV values of 0.83% for POCT and 0.26% for chemistry analyzer, both within the acceptable precision threshold (<2%). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias of –14.36 mg/dL with LoA ranging from –33.28 to 4.56 mg/dL. Pearson correlation demonstrated a very strong linear relationship (r = 0.985; p<0.001), while Lin’s CCC of 0.86 indicated moderate agreement. Linear regression identified constant bias (–12.08) and proportional bias (slope 0.95), with POCT consistently reporting lower values, particularly at higher glucose concentrations.Chemistry analyzer exhibited superior precision compared to POCT. Nevertheless, POCT provides clinically acceptable performance for rapid screening, though results at critical values should be confirmed using standard laboratory methods
References
Blaurock, M. G., Kallner, A., Menzel, S., Masuch, A., Nauck, M., & Petersmann, A. (2018). Impact of Glucose Measuring Systems and Sample Type on Diagnosis Rates of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Therapy, 9(5), 2029–2041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0495-0
Bright, D., Dunseath, G., Berti, F., Scuffi, C., Valgimigli, F., & Luzio, S. (2017). Accuracy Evaluation of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System According to en ISO 15197:2015. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 11(4), 849–850. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296817695340
IDF. (2025). Diabetes Atlas 11th Edition. In Diabetes Atlas 11th Edition.
Mader, J. K., Baumstark, A., Tüting, J., Sokol, G., Schuebel, R., Tong, Y., Roetschke, J., & Slingerland, R. J. (2024). Monitoring of the Analytical Performance of Four Different Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Post-market Performance Follow-Up Study. Diabetes Therapy, 15(12), 2525–2535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-024-01665-9
Mishra, K., Mishra, S., & Katial, T. (2024). Accuracy of point‑of‑care capillary blood sugar measurements in critically ill patients: An observational study. International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, 14(2), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_76_23
Pamungkasari, E. P., Balgis, B., Koot, J., Landsman, J., Pardoel, Z., Rusnak, M., Plancikova, D., Sari, V., Putra, S. E., Hafizhan, M., Ahmad, K. F., Pangesti, L., Wibowo, I. S., & Probandari, A. (2024). Identifying relevant diabetes and hypertension control management guidelines in primary healthcare and community settings in Indonesia: A Delphi survey. PLoS ONE, 19(11 November), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310295
Pleus, S., Jendrike, N., Baumstark, A., Mende, J., Wehrstedt, S., Haug, C., & Freckmann, G. (2024). Evaluation of System Accuracy, Precision, Hematocrit Influence, and User Performance of Two Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Based on ISO 15197:2013/EN ISO 15197:2015. Diabetes Therapy, 15(2), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01517-y
Pratumvinit, B., Charoenkoop, N., Niwattisaiwong, S., Kost, G. J., & Tientadakul, P. (2016). The effects of temperature and relative humidity on point-of-care glucose measurements in hospital practice in a tropical clinical setting. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 10(5), 1094–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816633485
Rascón-Careaga, A., Corella-Madueño, M. A. G., Pérez-Martínez, C. J., García-Rojas, A. M., Souflé-Vásquez, S. Z., García-Moroyoqui, M. T., Córdoba-Beltrán, L. J., Cáñez-Carrasco, M. G., & García-Alegría, A. M. (2021). Validation and Estimation of Uncertainty for a Glucose Determination Method GOD-PAP Using a Multi-calibrator as Reference. MAPAN, 36(2), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-021-00441-5
Sacks, D. B., Arnold, M., Bakris, G. L., Bruns, D. E., Horvath, A. R., Lernmark, Å., Metzger, B. E., Nathan, D. M., & Kirkman, M. S. (2023). Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care, 46(10), 1740–1746. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci23-0048
Teshome, M., Worede, A., & Asmelash, D. (2021). Total clinical chemistry laboratory errors and evaluation of the analytical quality control using sigma metric for routine clinical chemistry tests. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S286679
Ukpe, M. P., & Ezeanuka, A. C. (2025). Assessment of accuracy, clinical validity, and analytical linearity in point-of-care glucose monitoring devices for diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Biochemistry, 137, 110911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2025.110911
Wang, T., Zhang, L., Gong, L., Xin, Y., Han, L., Li, N., Peng, P., Zhao, X., & Li, R. (2024). Differences in the system accuracy acceptability of four types of blood glucose monitoring systems against five different standards. ILABMED, 2(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.37
Copyright (c) 2025 Isnin Aulia Ulfah Mu’awanah, Zuvi Fridhoriansyah, Tirsayanti AD. Hamidi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
