ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017
Performance of a Random Glucose Case-Finding Strategy to Detect Undiagnosed Diabetes.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and System Factors Associated with Second-generation Antipsychotic Metabolic Lab Monitoring, a Retrospective Cohort Study.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Beyond the chalkboard: overnutrition and cardiometabolic health among high school teachers in a semi-urban community in Southwestern Nigeria.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Associations of continuous glucose monitor derived time in range and glycaemic variability with diet lifestyle and demographics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Chronic Non-Communicable Disease Burden among Recently Arrived Refugees in Syracuse, New York.Annals of global health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Capillary Blood Glucose and Chinese Diabetes Risk Score in Screening for Diabetes and Prediabetes Among Elderly Chinese Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- What a SMART Pharmacist Can Discover in Only One Day: A Public Health Initiative Focused on Diabetes in North Macedonia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Random capillary blood glucose in the diagnosis of diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record-Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice.Diabetes care · 2025Article
- Opportunistic random blood glucose screening among professional drivers in northeastern Bangladesh: Assessing undiagnosed diabetes and health awareness.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Clustering of hypertension and clustering of diabetes within households across districts of India: A cross-sectional analysis using a nationally representative household survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System.Diabetes care · 2020Article
- Characteristics of undiagnosed diabetes in men and women under the age of 50 years in the Indian subcontinent: the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4)/Demographic Health Survey 2015-2016.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
- Random plasma glucose predicts the diagnosis of diabetes.PloS one · 2019Article
- Building Toward a Population-Based Approach to Diabetes Screening and Prevention for US Adults.Current diabetes reports · 2018Review
- Doc, I Just Ate: Interpreting Random Blood Glucose Values in Patients with Unknown Glycemic Status.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- RSSDI-ESI Clinical Practice Recommendations for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 2020.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
- Patient, Provider, and System Factors Associated With Failure to Follow-Up Elevated Glucose Results in Patients Without Diagnosed Diabetes.Health services research and managerial epidemiologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRandom glucose <200 mg/dL is associated with undiagnosed diabetes but not included in screening guidelines. This study describes a case-finding approach using non-diagnostic random glucose values to identify individuals in need of diabetes testing and compares its performance to current screening guidelines.
methodsIn 2015, cross-sectional data from non-fasting adults without diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes (N=7,161) in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were analyzed. Random glucose and survey data were used to assemble the random glucose, American Diabetes Association (ADA), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening strategies and predict diabetes using hemoglobin A1c criteria.
resultsUsing random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to select individuals for diabetes testing was 81.6% (95% CI=74.9%, 88.4%) sensitive, 78% (95% CI=76.6%, 79.5%) specific and had an area under the receiver operating curve (AROC) of 0.80 (95% CI=0.78, 0.83) to detect undiagnosed diabetes. Overall performance of ADA (AROC=0.59, 95% CI=0.58, 0.60), 2008 USPSTF (AROC=0.62, 95% CI=0.59, 0.65), and 2015 USPSTF (AROC=0.64, 95% CI=0.61, 0.67) guidelines was similar. The random glucose strategy correctly identified one case of undiagnosed diabetes for every 14 people screened, which was more efficient than ADA (number needed to screen, 35), 2008 USPSTF (44), and 2015 USPSTF (32) guidelines.
conclusionsUsing random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to identify individuals in need of diabetes screening is highly sensitive and specific, performing better than current screening guidelines. Case-finding strategies informed by random glucose data may improve diabetes detection. Further evaluation of this strategy's effectiveness in real-world clinical practice is needed.
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.