ArticleBMJ open2020
Imputing HbA1c from capillary blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a population-specific methodology for estimating glycaemic control that optimises resource allocation for patients with diabetes in rural Sri Lanka.
designCross-sectional study.
settingTrincomalee, Sri Lanka.
participantsPatients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (n=220) from three hospitals in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. OUTCOME MEASURE: Cross-validation was used to build and validate linear regression models to identify predictors of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Validation of models that regress HbA1c on known determinants of glycaemic control was thus the major outcome. These models were then used to devise an algorithm for categorising the patients based on estimated levels of glycaemic control.
resultsTime since last oral intake other than water and capillary blood glucose were the statistically significant predictors of HbA1c and thus included in the final models. In order to minimise type II error (misclassifying a high-risk individual as low-risk or moderate-risk), an algorithm for interpreting estimated glycaemic control was created. With this algorithm, 97.2% of the diabetic patients with HbA1c ≥9.0% were correctly identified.
conclusionsOur calibrated algorithm represents a highly sensitive approach for detecting patients with high-risk diabetes while optimising the allocation of HbA1c testing. Implementation of these methods will optimise the usage of resources devoted to the management of diabetes in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. Further external validation with diverse patient populations is required before applying our algorithm more widely.
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.