Cited by 182Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes and associated disorders

Moving to an A1C-Based Diagnosis of Diabetes Has a Different Impact on Prevalence in Different Ethnic Groups

Open access
Christensen, Dirk L., Witte, Daniel R., Kaduka, Lydia, Jørgensen, Marit E., Borch-Johnsen, Knut, Mohan, Viswanathan, Shaw, Jonathan E., Tabák, Adam G. +1 more·2010·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare screen-detected diabetes prevalence and the degree of diagnostic agreement by ethnicity with the current oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-based and newly proposed A1C-based diagnostic criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six studies (1999–2009) from Denmark, the U.K., Australia, Greenland, Kenya, and India were tested for the probability of an A1C ≥6.5% among diabetic case subjects based on an OGTT. The difference in probability between centers was analyzed by logistic regression adjusting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Diabetes prevalence was lower with the A1C-based diagnostic criteria in four of six studies. The probability of an A1C ≥6.5% among OGTT-diagnosed case subjects ranged widely (17.0–78.0%) by study center. Differences in diagnostic agreement between ethnic subgroups in the U.K. study were of the same magnitude as between-country comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: A shift to an A1C-based diagnosis for diabetes will have substantially different consequences for diabetes prevalence across ethnic groups and populations.

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/dc09-1843

Cites

11 of 11 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.”
  • 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).”

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
Christensen, D. L., Witte, D. R., Kaduka, L., Jørgensen, M. E., Borch-Johnsen, K., Mohan, V., Shaw, J. E., Tabák, A. G., & Vistisen, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Novo Nordisk (Denmark) (DK)
  • Kenya Medical Research Institute (KE)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark;
  • Madras Diabetes Research Foundation (IN)
  • Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, U.K.;
Corresponding author
Vistisen, Dorte
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2009-12-15
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
580-582
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W1989690440
Cited by
182
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.24
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)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • British Heart Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (AG 13196, R37AG013196, R01AG013196)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL36310, R01HL036310)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
diabetes diagnosis, HbA1c, oral glucose tolerance test, diagnostic criteria, diabetes prevalence, ethnic differences, diagnostic agreement, screening, cross-national comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Australia, Denmark, Diabetes Mellitus, Diagnostic Techniques, Endocrine, Ethnicity, Female, United Kingdom, Greenland, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, India, Kenya, Male, Middle Aged, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Prevalence

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