ArticlePloS one2012
Concordance of two diabetes diagnostic criteria using fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c: the Yuport Medical Checkup Centre study.
Article in PloS one, 2012. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tested the concordance of the two diagnostic criteria for diabetes using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS) and American Diabetes Association (ADA).
methodsWe used data from 7,328 subjects without known diabetes who participated in a voluntary health checkup program at least twice between 1998 and 2006, at intervals ≤ 2 years. For repeat participants who attended the screening over two times, data from the first and second checkups were used for this study. At the first visit, diabetes was diagnosed both at FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/L and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% using the JDS criteria. In addition, diabetes was diagnosed using two ADA criteria; ADA-FPG diabetes for persistent fasting hyperglycemia (FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/L) or ADA-HbA1c diabetes for hyper-glycated hemoglominemia (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%), both at the first and second checkups. Subsequently, the concordance of diagnosis between the JDS and the ADA criteria was evaluated.
resultsAt the first checkup, 153 (2.1%) persons were diagnosed with diabetes by the JDS criteria. They had higher levels of risk factors for diabetes than non-diabetic subjects. Using the first and second checkups, 174 (2.4%) and 175 (2.4%) were diagnosed with diabetes by the ADA-FPG criteria, respectively. Among 153 subjects diagnosed with diabetes by the JDS criteria, 125 (81.7%) and 129 (84.3%) had ADA-FPG and ADA-HbA1c diabetes, respectively. The kappa coefficients of the JDS criteria with ADA-FPG and ADA-HbA1c criteria were 0.759 and 0.782 (P<0.001), respectively. In the subgroup analysis stratified by sex, the concordance was well preserved at the kappa coefficients around 0.8 (between 0.725 and 0.836).
conclusionThe JDS diagnostic criteria for diabetes have a substantial and acceptable concordance with the ADA criteria. The JDS criteria may be a practical method for diagnosing diabetes that maintains compatibility with the ADA 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.