https://www.selleckchem.com/pr....oducts/Perifosine.ht
01 (0.50, 1.75), 0.46 (0.21, 084) and 0.26 (0.12, 0.46), giving an average bias of 0.6, 0.4 and 0.0, respectively in NGSP % unit. For eHbA1c and GMI, only 25% and 54% of subjects were within ±0.5% of laboratory HbA1c values, while 82% of cHbA1c were within ±0.5% of laboratory HbA1c results. Conclusions Our data show the superior performance of cHbA1c compared with eHbA1c and GMI at reflecting laboratory HbA1c. These data indicate that cHbA1c can be potentially used instead in laboratory HbA1c, at least in younger individuals with T1D
Like
Comment
Share
