Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24348061›Full record

ReviewDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2013

HbA1c for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Is there an optimal cut point to assess high risk of diabetes complications, and how well does the 6.5% cutoff perform?

Bernd Kowall, Wolfgang Rathmann

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Global coagulation assays in patients with diabetes mellitus.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bernd KowallInstitute of Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Wolfgang RathmannInstitute of Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has recently been recommended for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by leading diabetes organizations and by the World Health Organization. The most important reason to define T2DM is to identify subjects with high risk of diabetes complications who may benefit from treatment. This review addresses two questions: 1) to assess from existing studies whether there is an optimal HbA1c threshold to predict diabetes complications and 2) to assess how well the recommended 6.5% cutoff of HbA1c predicts diabetes complications. HbA1c cutoffs derived from predominantly cross-sectional studies on retinopathy differ widely from 5.2%-7.8%, and among other reasons, this is due to the heterogeneity of statistical methods and differences in the definition of retinopathy. From the few studies on other microvascular complications, HbA1c thresholds could not be identified. HbA1c cutoffs make less sense for the prediction of cardiovascular events (CVEs) because CVE risks depend on various strong risk factors (eg, hypertension, smoking); subjects with low HbA1c levels but high values of CVE risk factors were shown to be at higher CVE risk than subjects with high HbA1c levels and low values of CVE risk factors. However, the recommended 6.5% threshold distinguishes well between subjects with and subjects without retinopathy, and this distinction is particularly strong in severe retinopathy. Thus, in existing studies, the prevalence of any retinopathy was 2.5 to 4.5 times as high in persons with HbA1c-defined T2DM as in subjects with HbA1c <6.5%. To conclude, from existing studies, a consistent optimal HbA1c threshold for diabetes complications cannot be derived, and the recommended 6.5% threshold has mainly been brought about by convention rather than by having a consistent empirical basis. Nevertheless, the 6.5% threshold is suitable to detect subjects with prevalent retinopathy, which is the most diabetes specific complication. However, most of the studies on associations between HbA1c and microvascular diabetes complications are cross-sectional, and there is a need for longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

diabetes mellitusdiagnosisdiagnostic criteriaHbA1cretinopathy

Identifiers

PMID24348061
PMCPMC3848642
OpenAlexW2058950357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.