ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of different glycemic markers and insulin indices for diabetes mellitus in a general population.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to assess the contribution of repeated fasting blood glucose (FBG) measurements along with single collection of 2-hour postprandial glucose (2h PG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) on diabetes mellitus (DM) prevalence estimation, and investigate the association between the insulin-related markers and DM risk in a southeastern Chinese population. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 6515 participants aged 35-75 years with complete glycemic data. McNemar's test was utilized to compare the difference between WHO and ADA criteria in DM diagnosis. Newly diagnosed DM cases were classified as 1defect (DEF), 2DEF, or 3DEF DM according to the abnormalities of three glycemic indices. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing DM using different glycemic markers were assessed. The association between different index and DM was analyzed using log-binomial regression and receiver operating characteristic curves.
resultsThe age- and sex-standardized prevalence of DM was 14.0% and 14.7% by the WHO and ADA criteria, respectively. 2h PG, HbA1c, and FBG detected 89.65%, 40.69%, and 15.24% of newly diagnosed DM population, respectively. . All cases identified by repeated FBG were also detected by either 2h PG or HbA1c. The disposition index showed the highest area under the curve (0.82) in DM prediction, followed by the product of triglyceride and fasting glucose (TyG, 0.72). The estimated previous diagnosis, treatment, and control rate of DM was 38.6%, 34.9%, and 29.4%, respectively.
conclusionIt is recommended that 2h PG and HbA1c should be used in population-based studies. The disposition index and TyG could potentially be used as DM predictors.
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.