Cited by 115Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes and associated disorders

Relationship of A1C to Glucose Concentrations in Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Open access
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group·2008·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite the standing of A1C as the most validated and widely used measure for average glycemic control over time, the relationship between A1C and glucose concentrations is not completely understood. The purpose of this Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) study was to use continuous glucose monitoring data to examine the relationship between A1C and glucose in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty-eight youth enrolled in studies of the Navigator continuous glucose monitor were encouraged to wear the Navigator sensor at home continuously. A1C was measured at baseline, at 3 months, and at 6 months. Sensor glucose data were directly transmitted via the Internet, assuring that essentially all glucose values were analyzed. RESULTS: Subjects had a median of 112 h/week of Navigator data in the first 3 months and 115 h/week in the second 3 months. The slope of mean glucose over the previous 3 months versus A1C was only 18 mg/dl per 1.0% A1C. Individually, there was substantial variation in the relationship between mean glucose and A1C. A1C was not associated with glucose lability after controlling for mean glucose. Measures of an individual's rate of glycation were moderately correlated at the 3- and 6-month visits. CONCLUSIONS: As the chemistry of glycation would predict, we found no evidence to contradict the simple hypothesis that A1C directly reflects mean glucose over time. There is, however, substantial variability in individual mean glucose concentrations for a given A1C. Transforming reliable A1C values into calculated mean glucose values would, when applied to an individual, introduce substantial error.

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

Crossref · 10.2337/dc07-1835

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A small study comparing A1C to CGM data in children with type 1 diabetes found a highly statistically significant correlation between A1C and mean blood glucose, although the correlation (r = 0.7) was significantly lower than that in the ADAG trial.

    “A small study comparing A1C to CGM data in children with type 1 diabetes found a highly statistically significant correlation between A1C and mean blood glucose, although the correlation (r = 0.7) was significantly lower than that in the ADAG trial (21).”
  • A recent study comparing A1C to CGM data in 48 type 1 children found a highly statistically significant correlation between A1C and mean blood glucose, although the correlation (r = 0.7) was significantly lower than in the ADAG trial.

    “A recent study comparing A1C to CGM data in 48 type 1 children found a highly statistically significant correlation between A1C and mean blood glucose, although the correlation (r = 0.7) was significantly lower than in the ADAG trial (44).”

    From Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009 (2009) · cites this paper as [44]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group
Affiliations
Jaeb Center for Health Research (US)
Corresponding author
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2008-03-01
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
381-385
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W1674375000
Cited by
115
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
12.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01 RR 00059, M01RR006022, M01RR000059, M01 RR00069, M01 RR00070-41, M01 RR-06022, M01RR000070, M01RR000069)
  • NIH Clinical Center
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U10HD041919, U01HD041890, U10HD041908, HD 041890, U10HD041918, U10HD041890, U10HD041915, U10HD041906)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
HbA1c, mean blood glucose, type 1 diabetes, children, continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic control, glycemic variability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Blood Glucose, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Biosensing Techniques

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