CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 432Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes and associated disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A New Look at Screening and Diagnosing Diabetes Mellitus

Saudek, Christopher D., Herman, William H., Sacks, David B., Bergenstal, Richard M., Edelman, David, Davidson, Mayer B.·2008·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
DOI 10.1210/jc.2007-2174
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: Diabetes is underdiagnosed. About one third of people with diabetes do not know they have it, and the average lag between onset and diagnosis is 7 yr. This report reconsiders the criteria for diagnosing diabetes and recommends screening criteria to make case finding easier for clinicians and patients. Participants: R.M.B. invited experts in the area of diagnosis, monitoring, and management of diabetes to form a panel to review the literature and develop consensus regarding the screening and diagnosis of diabetes with particular reference to the use of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Participants met in open session and by E-mail thereafter. Metrika, Inc. sponsored the meeting. Evidence: A literature search was performed using standard search engines. Consensus Process: The panel heard each member’s discussion of the issues, reviewing evidence prior to drafting conclusions. Principal conclusions were agreed on, and then specific cut points were discussed in an iterative consensus process. Conclusions: The main factors in support of using HbA1c as a screening and diagnostic test include: 1) HbA1c does not require patients to be fasting; 2) HbA1c reflects longer-term glycemia than does plasma glucose; 3) HbA1c laboratory methods are now well standardized and reliable; and 4) errors caused by nonglycemic factors affecting HbA1c such as hemoglobinopathies are infrequent and can be minimized by confirming the diagnosis of diabetes with a plasma glucose (PG)-specific test. Specific recommendations include: 1) screening standards should be established that prompt further testing and closer follow-up, including fasting PG of 100 mg/dl or greater, random PG of 130 mg/dl or greater, or HbA1c greater than 6.0%; 2) HbA1c of 6.5–6.9% or greater, confirmed by a PG-specific test (fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance test), should establish the diagnosis of diabetes; and 3) HbA1c of 7% or greater, confirmed by another HbA1c- or a PG-specific test (fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance test) should establish the diagnosis of diabetes. The recommendations are offered for consideration of the clinical community and interested associations and societies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2007-2174

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 77 references

6 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. American Diabetes Association, 2007, Standards of medical care in diabetes—2007, S4
  2. Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus, 1997, Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus., 1183
  3. Tamborlane, 2005, Comparison of fingerstick hemoglobin A1c levels assayed by DCA 2000 with the DCCT/EDIC central laboratory assay: results of a diabetes research in children network (DirecNet) study., 13
  4. Viberti, 2006, A diabetes outcome progression trial (ADOPT): baseline characteristics of type 2 diabetic patients in North America and Europe., 1289

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 430

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Saudek, C. D., Herman, W. H., Sacks, D. B., Bergenstal, R. M., Edelman, D., & Davidson, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • International Diabetes Center (R.M.B.), Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
  • Duke University (US)
  • Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (US)
Corresponding author
Saudek, Christopher D.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Publisher
The Endocrine Society
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
93
Issue
7
Pages
2447-2453
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
DOI
10.1210/jc.2007-2174
OpenAlex
W2168825241
Cited by
432
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 44
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, diabetes screening, diabetes diagnosis, HbA1c, diagnostic criteria, fasting blood glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, underdiagnosis, glycemic control, consensus recommendations
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Glucose Tolerance Test, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity

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