Cited by 161Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes and associated disorders

Utility of A1C for Diabetes Screening in the 1999–2004 NHANES Population

Buell, Catherine, Kermah, Duclie, Davidson, Mayer B.·2007·Diabetes Care

Abstract

Thirty percent of people with diabetes are undiagnosed (1), and up to 25% already have microvascular complications at diagnosis (2). The American Diabetes Association recommends screening adults ≥45 years of age, especially those with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2, at 3-year intervals with a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement (3). However, physicians infrequently use an FPG for screening. For example, in a large health maintenance organization within the University of Michigan health system, 184 physicians at 22 separate locations screened 5,752 (69%) of 8,286 people without diabetes over a 3-year period. Ninety-five percent of the screening tests were random glucose measurements, 3% were FPGs, and 2% were A1Cs (4). Random glucose levels depend on the length of time after the previous meal and the carbohydrate content of that meal. There is no agreement on what random glucose values should lead to further investigations. Because A1C levels reflect average glycemia during the preceding 3–4 months, meal issues are not a factor. To determine what A1C level should lead to further tests to diagnose diabetes, we examined the 1999–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) population of those not known to have diabetes to determine the sensitivity and specificity with which various A1C levels identified people with diabetes. NHANES oversampled African-American and Hispanic individuals to obtain enough data for analysis in this minority subset. Accordingly, results were w…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc07-0585

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 18 · Cited by 161

Authors
Buell, C., Kermah, D., & Davidson, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2007-09-01
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
2233-2235
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2141767555
Cited by
161
References
18
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 18
FWCI
12.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (4p20md000182-15, 5u54rr014616-10)
  • School of Medicine, University of Missouri
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR019234, RR011145, RR014616, U54RR019234, P20RR011145)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (MD000182)
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
HbA1c, diabetes screening, undiagnosed diabetes, fasting blood glucose, random blood glucose, diagnostic thresholds, sensitivity and specificity, African American adults, Hispanic adults, NHANES
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Nutrition Surveys, ROC Curve, United States, Biomarkers

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