Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.

A clinical approach for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: an analysis using glycosylated hemoglobin levels. Meta-analysis Research Group on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Using Glycated Hemoglobin Levels

Anne L. Peters·1996·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.276.15.1246
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a glycosylated hemoglobin level can be used in place of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose diabetes. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SELECTION: An augmented MEDLINE search was performed to identify all reports from 1966 through June 1994 in which glycosylated hemoglobin levels were measured concurrently with performance of OGTTs in the same study. The corresponding authors were contacted and asked to provide individual data for all subjects tested. A total of 31 investigators representing 34 possible studies responded, and 18 were able to provide us with the data requested. Overall fasting plasma glucose concentrations, 2-hour postdextrose glucose concentrations, and glycosylated hemoglobin levels were available from 11 276 individuals. DATA EXTRACTION: To define normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and diabetes, modified World Health Organization criteria were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: An analysis of the methods used for measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin levels revealed that the HbA1c assay showed the least variance in normal subjects. Therefore, only data from the 8984 subjects who had HbA1c levels measured were used. When we used the mean HbA1c level plus 4 SDs as a cutpoint, the sensitivity was 36% and specificity was 100% compared with the results of the OGTT. Because of the lack of agreement between OGTT results and HbA1c levels, models were created to analyze the distribution of HbA1c levels in each study. Using these models, we identified 3 subpopulations. The third subpopulation was likely to represent subjects with diabetes. When we applied an HbA1c level of 7.0% as a cutpoint, the sensitivity was 99.6% for the third subpopulation. When this cutpoint was reapplied to the OGTT results, of those subjects with an HbA1c level of at least 7.0%, 89% had diabetes, 7% had IGT, and 4% were normal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the OGTT is the "gold standard" for diagnosing diabetes, it is known to be poorly reproducible and is often not performed. Not only is use of an HbA1c level to diagnose diabetes more convenient, but therapeutic decisions are based on this value, regardless of the findings on the OGTT. An HbA1c level of 7.0% or higher often requires pharmacological intervention and is most often associated with the diagnosis of diabetes by World Health Organization standards. An HbA1c level below 7.0% would generally be treated with diet and exercise, regardless of the diagnosis of IGT or diabetes by OGTT. Thus, measurement of HbA1c levels may represent a reasonable approach to identifying treatment-requiring diabetes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.276.15.1246

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Peters, A. L.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1996-10-16
Volume
276
Issue
15
Pages
1246-1252
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jama.276.15.1246
OpenAlex
W4300554878
Cited by
289
References
0
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.