ArticleAtencion primaria2000
[ADA criteria undervalues the impact of diabetes in a high-risk Spanish population].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [What is diabetics' real cardiovascular risk?].Atencion primaria · 2002Article
- [Cardiovascular risk and glucose metabolism: agreements and discrepancies between the WHO-85 and ADA-97 classifications].Atencion primaria · 2002Article
- [Comments to underevaluation of the ADA criteria with respect to the prevalence of diabetes in a high-risk Spanish population].Atencion primaria · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main aim was to investigate the prevalence of abnormal glucose homeostasis (impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance and undiagnosed diabetes) on high-risk Spanish population. The second, to determine the prevalence and usefulness of classical risk factors for diabetes screening according WHO and ADA criteria and to evaluate the potential effect of different stepwise strategies. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional, multicentric, selective screening study carried out in primary health care which involved 9 health care centres and 1 diabetes unit (230,000 inhabitants). PATIENTS: Individuals aged > 40 years, non pregnant with at least one major risk factor for diabetes: BMI > or = 30 kg/m2, a first degree relative with diabetes, previous abnormality of glucose tolerance or the use of oral hyperglycaemic drugs for a long time. MEASUREMENTS: Database including sex, age and risk factors. Diagnoses were based on measurement of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) followed by a 2h-plasma glucose (2hPG) using a 75 gr. oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Positive predictive value (PPV) and odds ratio were calculated for each risk factor. The FPG concentration which maximised the sensitivity and specificity with respect to the 2hPG was established by means of the ROC-curves (receiver operator characteristics). MAIN
results580 individuals were evaluated, 250 males (43.1%), mean age 58.1 +/- 10.7 years and BMI 31.2 +/- 5.2 kg/m2. A total of 132 (22.7%) individuals presented diabetes according the WHO criteria, 79 (13.6%) according ADA and only 53 (9.1%) according both sets of criteria. FPG > or = 126 mg/dl (7 mM) predicted a diabetic 2hPG with high specificity (94.2%) but a very low sensitivity (40.2%). If that cut-point was used alone for early screening half the diabetics with normal FPG but with a diabetic 2hPG would not have been diagnosed. According the WHO criteria PPV for classical risk factors oscillated between 23.4-29.1% and were significantly higher than those obtained according ADA criteria (11.6-18.3%; p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe OGTT is still the cornerstone for diabetes screening thus the FPG predictive value greatly decreases the 2hPG predictive value. ADA criteria undervalues the diabetes impact mainly on high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.