The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Assessing the Impact of Blood Sample Type on the Estimated Prevalence of Impaired Glucose Tolerance and Diabetes Mellitus in Epidemiological Surveys
Abstract
In a prospective study of 353 patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was performed at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Venous whole blood glucose and venous plasma glucose samples were assayed on a bench-top analyser. The World Health Organization diagnostic criteria for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes mellitus were applied to venous whole blood glucose and venous plasma glucose measurements. The difference between the plasma and whole blood concentration of glucose was 0.79-0.86 mmol l-1 at a plasma glucose of 7.8 mmol l-1 and 1.22-1.24 mmol l-1 at a plasma glucose of 11.1 mmol l-1 (compared to 1.1 mmol l-1 by World Health Organization criteria at both cut-points). Despite this, in our subject population with a high prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance (20.3% at 3 months, 15.3% at 12 months) and diabetes mellitus (10.1% at 3 months and 12 months), there was no significant difference in the proportion classified impaired glucose tolerance or having diabetes mellitus using venous whole blood glucose compared to venous plasma glucose. We conclude that despite the minor anomaly between WHO diagnostic criteria based on venous whole blood glucose and venous plasma glucose measurements, these criteria are robust and give broadly comparable population prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance irrespective of blood sample choice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 20
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.2337/diab.28.12.1039 · DOI · Paper page
- Niejadlik DC, 1974, The glucose tolerance test: An evaluation, Postgrad Med, 55, 73, 10.1080/00325481.1974.11713783 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1464-5491.1991.tb01558.x · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.307.6908.832 · DOI
- Fuller JH, 1980, Coronary‐heart‐disease‐risk and impaired glucose tolerance: the Whitehall study, Lancet, 1374
- 10.1007/BF00423146 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00254832 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(80)92274-6 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.295.6610.1363 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.301.6749.397 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrer, M., Albers, C. J., Neil, H. A. W., Adams, P. C., Laker, M. F., & Alberti, K. G. M. M.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Farrer, M.
- ORCID
- Alberti, K.G.M.M.
- Venue
- Diabetic Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 325-329
- ISSN
- 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5491
- OpenAlex
- W2020591989
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- British Heart Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes mellitus, venous plasma glucose, WHO diagnostic criteria, oral glucose tolerance test, coronary artery bypass grafting, prevalence estimation, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Coronary Artery Bypass, Autoanalysis, Blood Glucose, Blood Specimen Collection, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Time Factors, Veins, Prevalence, Glucose Intolerance
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