ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Diagnostic accuracy of glycated albumin and fructosamine for detecting diabetes and prediabetes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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.
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
backgroundEarly and accurate diagnosis of diabetes is essential to prevent long-term complications. While the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the reference standard, it is often impractical. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widely used instead, but it can be unreliable in conditions that alter erythrocyte lifespan. Glycated albumin (GA) and fructosamine (FA) represent promising, short-term glycemic biomarkers that are independent of red blood cell turnover; however, their exact diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis protocol follows PRISMA-DTA guidelines. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to December 2025 for observational studies evaluating GA or FA against OGTT in adult populations. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and assess methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Diagnostic accuracy measures will be pooled using a bivariate random-effects model, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves will be constructed. DISCUSSION: This review will provide comprehensive evidence on the diagnostic performance of GA and FA, clarifying their potential utility as alternatives to HbA1c. Findings will help inform clinical practice, laboratory decision-making, and future guideline development, particularly for populations where HbA1c testing is unreliable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251236959.
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.