ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Diagnostic accuracy of glycated hemoglobin and glycated albumin for detecting dysglycemia among community-dwelling older adults in China: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes (Pre-DM) in elderly individuals necessitates refined diagnostic tools. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is cumbersome, and age may alter glycemic parameters, suggesting a need for age-specific thresholds. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and glycated albumin (GA) for dysglycemia in community-dwelling older adults in Chengdu, China.
methodsThis was a community-based cross-sectional study that consecutively enrolled eligible community-dwelling residents aged 60 years or older in Chengdu, China. A total of 1,162 participants underwent measurements of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c, and GA. A standard 75‑g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with two‑hour post-prandial plasma glucose (2hPG) measurement was performed, and glycemic status was defined according to the World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine optimal cutoff values for HbA1c and GA to detect DM and Pre-DM.
resultsAmong the 1,162 participants (65.2% were female; median age, 67 years), 38.2%, 34.5%, and 27.3% were classified as having normal glucose tolerance (NGT), Pre-DM, and DM, respectively. For the diagnosis of DM, HbA1c demonstrated an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.88). An optimal cutoff value of 6.0% yielded greater sensitivity (72.56%) than did the conventional threshold of 6.5% (sensitivity: 34.70%), while maintaining a specificity of 85.36%. Diagnostic performance was superior in females than in males (AUC = 0.87 vs 0.83, P = 0.001) and varied significantly across age and BMI groups, supporting the consideration of age‑specific cutoff values. GA demonstrated moderate diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.70), and its combination with HbA1c did not improve performance. Both biomarkers exhibited limited ability for identifying Pre-DM.
conclusionHbA1c at a lower cutoff value of 6.0% demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for DM in older adults, though its performance was influenced by age, sex, and BMI. In contrast, GA did not confer a significant diagnostic advantage. These findings suggest that the current cutoff value of HbA1c warrants reassessment in elderly individuals while also highlighting its limitations for Pre-DM screening, where OGTT may still be necessary.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn , ChiCTR2300070831) on 24 April 2023.
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.