Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20067965›Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2010

A1C for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

Zhong X Lu, Karen Z Walker, Kerin O'Dea, Ken A Sikaris, Jonathan E Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Association Between Visceral Fat Area and Glycated Hemoglobin in Type 2 Diabetics: A Retrospective Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diabetes mellitus: The epidemic of the century.World journal of diabetes · 2015
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Appreciating the medical literature: five notable articles in general internal medicine from 2009 and 2010.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2011
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zhong X LuMelbourne Pathology Services, Melbourne, Australia. zhong.lu@mps.com.au
Karen Z Walker
Kerin O'Dea
Ken A Sikaris
Jonathan E Shaw

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate A1C for screening and diagnosis of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes defined by oral glucose tolerance testing in clinical and general populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsA1C cut offs (< or =5.5% to rule out diabetes; > or =7.0% to rule in diabetes) were derived from a clinical group (Melbourne Pathology [MP] group: n = 2,494; undiagnosed diabetes 34.6%) and then evaluated in a population-based sample (AusDiab group: n = 6,015; undiagnosed diabetes 4.6%).

resultsFor diabetes in the MP and AusDiab groups, A1C at 5.5% gave sensitivities of 98.7 and 83.5%, while A1C at 7.0% gave specificities of 98.2 and 100%, respectively. Many (61.9-69.3%) with impaired A1C (5.6-6.9%) in both populations had abnormal glucose status.

conclusionsA1C < or =5.5% and > or =7.0% predicts absence or presence of type 2 diabetes, respectively, while at A1C 6.5-6.9% diabetes is highly probable in clinical and population settings. A high proportion of people with impaired A1C have abnormal glucose status requiring follow-up.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycation End Products, AdvancedHumansGlycation End Products, Advanced

Identifiers

PMID20067965
PMCPMC2845033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.