ArticleJournal of diabetes and its complications
Epidemiological ramifications of diagnosing diabetes with HbA1c levels.
Article in Journal of diabetes and its complications. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update on biomarkers of glycemic control.World journal of diabetes · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo compare the prevalence of diabetes by history and using the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) criterion alone, the HbA1c criterion alone or either one in those not known to have diabetes.
methodsAnalysis of NHANES population ≥20years old from 1999 through 2010.
resultsIn those diagnosed by laboratory tests, 86% met the FPG criterion and 53% met the HbA1c criterion. The prevalence of diabetes (history or laboratory test) was significantly increased when the FPG criterion was used compared with the HbA1c criterion in the entire (11.5% vs 10.5%, P=0.018) and Caucasian (10.6% vs 9.2%, P=0.022) populations. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the prevalence when only the FPG criterion was used compared with only the HbA1c criterion in Hispanics (12.9% vs 12.1% P=0.386) and African Americans (14.5 vs 14.3%, P=0.960). Using history and either criterion in those not known to have it, diabetes increased by 61% in this 12year period in adults ≥20years old.
conclusionsUsing the FPG rather than the HbA1c criterion to diagnose diabetes in those without a history significantly increased the total prevalence of diabetes in Caucasians but not in African Americans or Hispanics.
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.