Comparison of Automated and Manual Methods for Biochemical Glucose Analysis: Are There Any Differences?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The performance of biochemical analyses in laboratories may be conducted through manual and/or automated methods, each presenting specific characteristics related to analytical and operational performance, which may affect the quality and reliability of the results. This study aimed to compare two methodologies, evaluating precision, accuracy, and reproducibility in glucose measurement, and how variations between these methods may impact the reliability and comparability of the results. The work was carried out using UV-Vis spectrophotometry and the Audmax 240i biochemical analyzer, analyzing 55 samples obtained during practical classes of the clinical biochemistry course. The data collected were subjected to statistical analysis to verify significant differences between the evaluated methods. The comparison revealed significant differences (p = 0.0408) in the analytical results. The manual method showed greater dispersion of results, with a coefficient of variation of 32.88%, whereas the automated method demonstrated lower analytical variability, with a coefficient of variation of 16.46%. The automated method also required less execution time, thereby reducing the risk of human error and analytical variability. Conversely, the manual process entailed longer processing time and proved more susceptible to variability associated with the execution of analytical and operational steps. It is concluded that, although both methods are applicable to the determination of plasma glucose, laboratory automation contributes to the enhancement of analytical quality and the reliability of glucose testing.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright Statement - Policy Proposal for Open Access Journals
Authors who publish in The Brazilian journal of Biomedical Sciences (RBCBM) agree to the following terms: 1 - Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License allowing sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. 2 - Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal. 3 - Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase the impact and citation of published work.
This is an open access article under the CC-BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
References
Kumari S, Bahinipati J, Pradhan T, Sahoo DP. Comparison of test performance of biochemical parameters in semiautomatic method and fully automatic analyzer method. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(8):3994-4000. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_94_20.
Fiedorova K, Augustynek M, Kubicek J, Kudrna P, Bibbo D. Review of present method of glucose from human blood and body fluids assessment. Biosens Bioelectron. 2022;211:114348. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2022.114348.
Bin Dahman LS, Daakeek AM, Alghazali HS, Kaity AM, Obbed MS. Evaluation of the three glucometer devices performance in comparison with the Cobas Integra 400 Plus autoanalyzer in measuring blood glucose levels: a comparative cross-sectional study. J Diabetes Mellit. 2021;11(4):132-142. doi:10.4236/jdm.2021.114010.
Kanwugu ON, Anyomih TTK, Abdulai E, Aawaar G, Anaba F, Azongo TB, et al. A comparative assessment of the glucose monitor (SD Codefree) and auto analyzer (BT-3000) in measuring blood glucose concentration among diabetic patients. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:453. doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2792-4.
Putri SK, Fajarna F, Ulya R. Comparison of blood glucose testing methods: analyzer, glucometer, and spectrophotometer at Kuta Alam Health Center. J Carbazon. 2025;3(1):1-8. doi:10.24815/jocarbazon.v3i1.43627.
Bolbakov RG, Sinitsyn AV, Tsvetkov VYa. Methods of comparative analysis. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1679:052047. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1679/5/052047.
Aldhafeeri TTO, Alshammari AMA, Alghamdi SHBS, Aldhafeeri NMM, Aldhafeeri SQW, Aldhafeeri ARD. Comparing manual and automated sample preparation methods for clinical chemistry analytes in Hafr Albatan, KSA. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2022;29(4):1010-1015. doi:10.53555/jptcp.v29i04.5643.
Naing L, Winn T, Rusli BN. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Arch Orofac Sci. 2006;1:9-14.
Linnet K. Necessary sample size for method comparison studies based on regression analysis. Clin Chem. 1999;45(6):882-894.
Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244003. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244003.
Mikesh LM, Bruns DE. Stabilization of glucose in blood specimens: mechanism of delay in fluoride inhibition of glycolysis. Clin Chem. 2008;54(5):930-932. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.101634.
Picheth S, Oliveira MGC, Batista MC, et al. The effect of fluoride and EDTA on blood glucose analysis: a comparative study. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2001;39:123-129.
Pleus S, Schauer S, Link M, et al. Stability of glucose concentrations in frozen plasma. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(5):1096-1100. doi:10.1177/1932296820963657.
Luppa PB, Bietenbeck A, Müller MM, et al. Quality assessment of glucose measurement with regard to epidemiology and clinical management of diabetes mellitus in Germany. Front Mol Biosci. 2024;11:1371426. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2024.1371426.
Lin X, Yan Q, Du Y, Wang J, Huang D, Yan J, et al. Evaluation for serum glucose standardization in clinical laboratories of Southern China by consecutive 6 years proficiency testing based on JCTLM-recommended reference methods. J Lab Med. 2024;48(4):163-171. doi:10.1515/labmed-2024-0037.
Özcan Ö, Grundel PJM, Heijboer AC, den Elzen WPJ. Pipetting performance across laboratory personnel: a comparative study. J Appl Lab Med. 2026;11(3):460-469. doi:10.1093/jalm/jfag006.
Fachinelli J, Hermes DM, Da Rosa DP. Estudo comparativo da glicemia dosada em glicosímetro e em dosagem laboratorial. Rev Uningá. 2017;53(1):51-55. doi:10.46311/2318-0579.53.eUJ1413.
Mader JK, Pfützner A, Parkin CG, et al. Monitoring of the analytical performance of four different blood glucose monitoring systems: a post-market performance follow-up study. Diabetes Ther. 2024;15:2525-2535. doi:10.1007/s13300-024-01665-9.