Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28279547›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017

Performance of a Random Glucose Case-Finding Strategy to Detect Undiagnosed Diabetes.

Michael E Bowen, Lei Xuan, Ildiko Lingvay, Ethan A Halm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael E BowenDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: michael.bowen@utsouthwestern.edu.
Lei XuanDivision of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Ildiko LingvayDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Ethan A HalmDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1)UL1TR001105 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$24.5M
UT Southwestern Center of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR)R24HS022418 · AHRQ · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HALM, ETHAN A · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1KL2TR001103 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
Predicting Diabetes Risk Using Glucose DataK23DK104065 · NIDDK · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI BOWEN, MICHAEL EDWARD · 2014 to 2018
$862k
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022418NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001103NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001105NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK104065NIDDK NIH HHS L30 DK099981
6 · The paper itself

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

Cross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysPrediabetic StatePrevalenceRisk FactorsGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID28279547
PMCPMC5438773
OpenAlexW2592957971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.