ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Diagnostic accuracy of the American Diabetes Association criteria in the diagnosis of glucose intolerance among high-risk Omani subjects.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent in the rapidly growing Omani population. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recommended new criteria for Type 2 diabetes, but the new criteria have been challenged as inadequate. We measured the sensitivityand specificity of theADA criteria compared with World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of abnormal glucose intolerance in Omani subjects.
methodsSubjects not known to have diabetes were recruited from the Lipid and Endocrine Clinics at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital between 1999 and 2001. Fasting and 2-hour post-75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose levels were measured according to WHO criteria.
results176 subjects were recruited for the study. WHO and the ADA criteria were in agreement for 104 out of 115 normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 4 out of 38 impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 14 out of 23 diabetic tolerance glucose (DGT) corresponding to a sensitivity of 90%, 10%, and 61% for NGT, IGT, and DGT, respectively. Compared with WHO criteria, the ADA criteria had 30% sensitivity and 90% specificity overall. Comparing fasting glucose cutoff values for the diagnosis of IGT, a cut-off of 5.9 mmol/L yielded the best diagnostic sensitivity and specificity compared to the 6.1 mmol/L recommended by the ADA criteria as determined by the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC), with an area under the curve of 0.677 vs. 0.387, respectively.
conclusionThe ADA criteria had poor sensitivity in the detection of impaired glucose tolerance in high-risk Omani subjects compared with WHO criteria.
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.