ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2021
Self-administered oral glucose tolerance test with capillary glucose measurements for the screening of diabetes mellitus in high-risk adults: a feasibility study.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of repeated hot water immersion on microvascular function, glycaemic control and inflammation in White European and South Asian males.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Patients' perspectives on video consultation for non-communicable diseases: a qualitative study in Singapore.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Pregnancy as an opportunity to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus: FIGO Best Practice Advice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly diagnosis of prediabetes based on blood sampling for the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is crucial for intervention but multiple barriers hinder its uptake. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and precision of a self-administered capillary OGTT for type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in high-risk individuals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsParticipants with history of gestational diabetes or prediabetes were recruited in primary care. Due to their prediabetic status and previous diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus, a proportion of participants had previous experience doing OGTT. They self-administered the capillary OGTT and concurrently their venous glucose samples were obtained. They filled a questionnaire to collect their demographic information, views of their capillary OGTT, and their preferred site of the test.
resultsAmong 30 participants enrolled in this feasibility study, 93.3% of them felt confident of performing the capillary OGTT themselves, and 70.0% preferred the test at home. Older, less educated participants found it less acceptable. Mean capillary glucose values were significantly higher than venous glucose values, with mean difference at 0.31 mmol/L (95% CI 0.13 to 0.49) at fasting, and 0.47 mmol/L (95% CI 0.12 to 0.92) 2 hours post-OGTT. Capillary and venous glucose measurements were correlated for fasting (r=0.95; p<0.001) and 2-hour-post-OGTT (r=0.95;p<0.001). The Fleiss-Kappa Score (0.79, p<0.0001) indicated fair agreement between the two methods. The capillary OGTT had excellent sensitivity (94.1%) and negative predictive value (NPV=91.7%) in identifying prediabetes or T2DM status, vis-a-vis to venous glucose samples.
conclusionSelf-administered capillary OGTT is feasible and acceptable, especially among younger adults, with excellent sensitivity and NPV compared with plasma-based OGTT.
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.