Cited by 46Ovarian function and disordersDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsGestational Diabetes Research and Management

Comparison of diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance screening methods for women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Open access
Hurd, William W., Abdel-Rahman, Mohamed Y., Ismail, Salah A., Abdellah, Mostafa A., Schmotzer, Christine L., Sood, Ajay·2011·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To compare screening strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), impaired glucose tolerance (pre-DM), and insulin resistance (IR) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).Design Prospective study.Setting Academic reproductive endocrinology practice.Patient(s) Adult women with PCOS (n = 111).Intervention(s) None.Main outcome measure(s) Subjects were screened for pre-DM and DM using a 2-hour glucose tolerance test (GTT), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and for IR using homeostasis model assessment (HOMA), insulin levels (fasting and 2 hours after 75 glucose load), or obesity. Screening approaches were compared using positive and negative percent agreement and Cohen's kappa (κ).Result(s) DM and pre-DM were diagnosed by GTT in 4% and 20% of subjects, respectively. Screening with FPG failed to identify 41% of pre-DM and 20% of DM subjects. GTT and HbA1c had only fair agreement (κ = 0.29). IR was diagnosed in 24% of subjects with pre-DM or DM and in 56% of the remaining subjects using HOMA and insulin levels. HOMA and elevated insulin levels demonstrated substantial agreement for detecting IR (κ = 0.70-0.73). Obesity demonstrated fair to slight agreement (κ = 0.33-0.18).Conclusion(s) Women with PCOS should be screened for Pre-DM and DM using GTT or HbA1c, and those with Pre-DM or DM are presumed to have IR. In the rest, IR can be detected using either HOMA or insulin levels.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.002

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hurd, W. W., Abdel-Rahman, M. Y., Ismail, S. A., Abdellah, M. A., Schmotzer, C. L., & Sood, A.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (US)
  • Sohag University (EG)
Corresponding author
Hurd, William W.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
1043-1047
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139408020
Cited by
46
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes screening, glucose tolerance test, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, HOMA, insulin levels, obesity, screening agreement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insulin Resistance, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Prospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers, Young Adult

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