Cited by 157Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and Management

A1C and Diabetes Diagnosis: The Rancho Bernardo Study

Open access
Kramer, Caroline K., Araneta, Maria Rosario G., Barrett-Connor, Elizabeth·2010·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the sensitivity and specificity of A1C as a diagnostic test for type 2 diabetes in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of community-dwelling adults without known diabetes who had an oral glucose tolerance test and A1C measured on the same day. RESULTS: Mean age of the 2,107 participants was 69.4 ± 11.1 years; 43% were men. Based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria, 198 had previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. The sensitivity/specificity of A1C cut point of 6.5% was 44/79%. Results were similar in age- and sex-stratified analyses. Given the A1C cut point of 6.5%, 85% of participants were classified as nondiabetic by ADA criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The limited sensitivity of the A1C test may result in delayed diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, while the strict use of ADA criteria may fail to identify a high proportion of individuals with diabetes by A1C ≥6.5% or retinopathy.

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/dc09-1366

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The IEC A1C criteria have recently been compared with testing with fasting glucose or OGTTs in various populations to diagnose diabetes and high-risk/pre-diabetes.

    “The IEC A1C criteria have recently been compared with testing with fasting glucose or oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in various populations to diagnose diabetes (7–13) and high-risk/pre-diabetes (10,11,13), but the ADA A1C criteria have not been studied.”

    From Screening for Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes With Proposed A1C-Based Diagnostic Criteria (2010) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results and Conclusions compare the A1C ≥6.5% diabetes threshold with fasting-glucose and OGTT criteria in older adults. The paper discusses missed pre-diabetes, but our copy does not show a comparison of IEC A1C high-risk/pre-diabetes criteria with those glucose tests. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Problems with the IEC criteria have been reported with diverse populations.

    “Further studies would be required before our findings with the ADA criteria could be generalized to other racial/ethnic groups, but problems with the IEC criteria have been reported with diverse populations (8,9,12).”

    From Screening for Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes With Proposed A1C-Based Diagnostic Criteria (2010) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results report low agreement between the IEC-recommended A1C cutoff of 6.5% and diabetes diagnosis by ADA criteria in this cohort of older adults. The Conclusions also compare the finding with NHANES data, but this paper does not establish that the problem occurs across diverse racial or ethnic populations. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Kramer, C. K., Araneta, M. R. G., & Barrett-Connor, E.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Barrett-Connor, Elizabeth
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2009-10-16
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
101-103
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2108321760
Cited by
157
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 15
FWCI
16.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • National Institute on Aging (R37AG007181, AG07181, R01AG007181, AG028507, R01AG028507)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK031801)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
HbA1c, type 2 diabetes diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity, older adults, undiagnosed diabetes, ADA diagnostic criteria, oral glucose tolerance test, delayed diagnosis, retinopathy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged

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