ArticleScientific reports2026
Validity of hemoglobin A1C for screening prediabetes and diabetes in the Iranian population: analysis of National surveillance data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- HbA1c-Based Metabolic Stratification: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Biological Differences Across Normoglycemic, Prediabetic, and Diabetic Subjects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a crucial biomarker in the diagnosis and management of dysglycemia. However, its diagnostic accuracy, especially considering its variations by age and sex, remains unclear. This study utilized data from Iran's 2016 Stepwise Approach to Surveillance Survey. A total of 18,729 individuals aged ≥ 25 years old without diabetes were analyzed. The validity of HbA1c for detecting prediabetes and diabetes was assessed using measures of concordance, the Kappa statistic, and the area under the curve (AUC), with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as the reference. Additionally, optimal HbA1c thresholds for prediabetes and diabetes were determined. The AUCs of HbA1c for detecting diabetes were 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97) in women and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) in men. For prediabetes, the AUCs were 0.81 (95% CI 0.79-0.83) in women and 0.76 (95% CI 0.74-0.79) in men. Moreover, an HbA1c threshold of 6.0% was optimal in young (sensitivity: 79.1, specifity: 97.6%) and middle-aged adults (sensitivity: 89.4%, specifity: 88.5%) for detection of diabetes, while an HbA1c of 6.5% was optimal in old adults (sensitivity: 78.2%, specificity: 94.8%). In young women (aged < 40 years old), the HbA1c of 5.7% was optimal for the detection of diabetes (sensitivity = 92.9%, specificity: 91.2%). The clinical performance of HbA1c in the detection of prediabetes was higher when defining prediabetes within the FPG range of 110-125 mg/dL (sensitivity: 71.3%, specifity: 75.8%) instead of 100-125 mg/dL (sensitivity: 52.9%, specifity: 79.3%). The study highlights a higher concordance of HbA1c with FPG in women than in men. We showed that lower HbA1c thresholds are needed in the young and middle-aged adult population, especially in young women.
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.