ArticleBMC medicine2021
Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural history study of type 1 diabetes risk in adults (T1DRA): protocol for screening and follow-up of UK adults.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Accounting for Age-Related Increases in HbA1c More Accurately Quantifies Risk of Type 1 Diabetes Progression in Islet Autoantibody-Positive Adults.Diabetes care · 2026Observational
- Polygenic background contributes to GCK-MODY clinical presentation and glycaemic variability.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Glycated Hemoglobin and Prediabetes: A Systematic Review of HbA1c Thresholds for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Detection of previously undiagnosed conditions in midlife preventive health examinations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Determinants of HbA1c Variability Across Clinical Subgroups: When the Same Value Does Not Reflect the Same Biological Risk.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Accounting for age-related increases in HbA1c more accurately quantifies risk of Type 1 Diabetes progression in islet autoantibody-positive adults.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Genetic risk in extremely early onset type 1 diabetes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Diabetic cardiomyopathy: a comprehensive review of diagnosis, management, and future directions.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
- Evaluating a digital intervention for prevention of type 2 diabetes: protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in urban and rural India.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Developing a Simple Non-Laboratory-Based Machine Learning Tool for Prediabetes Screening in a Target Population: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Article
- Common genetic variants modify disease risk and clinical presentation in monogenic diabetes.Nature metabolism · 2025Article
- Determinants of Poor Glycemic Control Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Approach to Metabolomic Data Predicts Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Incidence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Observational
- Diagnostic Performance of Sex-Specific Modified Metabolite Patterns in Urine for Screening of Prediabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the 'intermediate' range. This paper investigated the relationship between HbA1c and future diabetes risk and determined the impact of varying thresholds to identify those at high risk of developing T2D.
methodsWe studied 4227 participants without diabetes aged ≥ 40 years recruited to the Exeter 10,000 population cohort in South West England. HbA1c was measured at study recruitment with repeat HbA1c available as part of usual care. Absolute risk of developing diabetes within 5 years, defined by HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), according to baseline HbA1c, was assessed by a flexible parametric survival model.
resultsThe overall absolute 5-year risk (95% CI) of developing T2D in the cohort was 4.2% (3.6, 4.8%). This rose to 7.1% (6.1, 8.2%) in the 56% (n = 2358/4224) of participants classified 'high-risk' with HbA1c ≥ 39 mmol/mol (5.7%; ADA criteria). Under IEC criteria, HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), 22% (n = 929/4277) of the cohort was classified high-risk with 5-year risk 14.9% (12.6, 17.2%). Those with the highest HbA1c values (44-47 mmol/mol [6.2-6.4%]) had much higher 5-year risk, 26.4% (22.0, 30.5%) compared with 2.1% (1.5, 2.6%) for 39-41 mmol/mol (5.7-5.9%) and 7.0% (5.4, 8.6%) for 42-43 mmol/mol (6.0-6.1%). Changing the entry criterion to prevention programmes from 39 to 42 mmol/mol (5.7-6.0%) reduced the proportion classified high-risk by 61%, and increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 5.8 to 12.4% with negligible impact on the negative predictive value (NPV), 99.6% to 99.1%. Increasing the threshold further, to 44 mmol/mol (6.2%), reduced those classified high-risk by 59%, and markedly increased the PPV from 12.4 to 23.2% and had little impact on the NPV (99.1% to 98.5%).
conclusionsA large proportion of people are identified as high-risk using current thresholds. Increasing the risk threshold markedly reduces the number of people that would be classified as high-risk and entered into prevention programmes, although this must be balanced against cases missed. Raising the entry threshold would allow limited intervention opportunities to be focused on those most likely to develop T2D.
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.