ArticleDiabetologia2026
Superiority of 1 h plasma glucose vs fasting plasma glucose, 2 h plasma glucose and HbA
Article in Diabetologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative accuracy of 1-hour post-load plasma glucose, glycated albumin, and conventional glycemic measures for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Staging intermediate hyperglycaemia for type 2 diabetes prevention: the ELSA-Brasil study.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Feasibility of using OGTT 1-h PG as a diagnostic criterion for diabetes and pre-diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisThe IDF has proposed 1 h plasma glucose (1 h PG) as a diagnostic test for type 2 diabetes. This study evaluated the utility of 1 h PG in diagnosing type 2 diabetes, compared with fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 h plasma glucose (2 h PG), HbA
methodsAnalyses were conducted using data from five independent cohorts: KoGES, CATAMERI, GENFIEV, PLIS (follow-up) and TULIP (follow-up). Type 2 diabetes was defined according to ADA criteria (FPG ≥7.0 mmol/l [≥126 mg/dl], 2 h PG ≥11.1 mmol/l [≥200 mg/dl] or HbA
resultsCohort-specific analyses demonstrated consistently higher AUCs for 1 h PG in KoGES (AUC 0.96 vs 0.88; Δ 0.08; sensitivity 84.2 vs 77.0; specificity 98.6 vs 87.0), CATAMERI (AUC 0.98 vs 0.86; Δ 0.12; sensitivity 75.0 vs 69.4; specificity: 98.4 vs 78.9), GENFIEV (AUC 0.97 vs 0.89; Δ 0.08; sensitivity 89.5 vs 69.4; specificity 100.0 vs 88.3), PLIS follow-up (AUC 0.98 vs 0.76; Δ 0.22; sensitivity 94.9 vs 46.8; specificity 100.0 vs 92.3) and TULIP follow-up (AUC 0.98 vs 0.83; Δ 0.15; sensitivity 90.2 vs 90.2; specificity 100.0 vs 65.0) compared with FPG plus HbA CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationThese findings support the superior utility of the IDF-recommended 1 h PG vs FPG, 2 h PG, HbA
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.