Cited by 568Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

The 1997 American Diabetes Association and 1999 World Health Organization criteria for hyperglycemia in the diagnosis and prediction of diabetes

Open access
Gabir, M M, Hanson, R L, Dabelea, D, Imperatore, G, Roumain, J, Bennett, P H, Knowler, W C·2000·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The 1997 American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the 1985 and 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for diabetes and hyperglycemia differ. The appropriateness of these diagnostic criteria in terms of individuals identified as abnormal and their prognosis has been debated. The purpose of this study is to compare the classifications of people by these criteria and to compare fasting and postload plasma glucose concentrations in the prediction of diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The frequencies of diabetes by the 3 sets of criteria were compared in 5,023 adult Pima Indians not taking hypoglycemic drugs. Among nondiabetic subjects, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h postload plasma glucose (2-h PG) concentrations and categories of impaired glucose regulation or diabetes were evaluated as predictors of diabetes defined by 1999 WHO criteria. RESULTS: The frequency of diabetes was 12.5% by 1997 ADA criteria, 14.6% by 1985 WHO criteria, and 15.3% by 1999 WHO criteria. The incidence of diabetes was strongly related to higher FPG and 2-h PG, each of which had very similar predictive powers. Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) was more common than impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (15 vs. 5%), but the 5-year incidence of diabetes was higher in IFG than IGT (37 vs. 24%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and incidence of diabetes are somewhat lower with the ADA criteria than with the 1985 or 1999 WHO criteria. The intermediate categories of glycemia differ substantially IFG defines a smaller number of people who are at higher risk of developing diabetes than those with IGT. More people at high risk of diabetes could be identified by using either IFG or IGT, as recommended by the 1999 WHO criteria, or by using the FPG concentration alone, but with a lower cutoff value.

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/diacare.23.8.1108

Cites

14 of 14 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 rationale for lowering the FPG threshold is based on data that individuals with FPG values between 5.6 and 6.05 mmol/L are at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes.

    “The rationale is based on data that individuals with FPG values between 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) and 6.05 mmol/L (109 mg/dL) are at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes (39,40).”
  • The FPG and 2-h OGTT do not necessarily detect the same pre-diabetic individuals.

    “It should be noted that the two tests do not necessarily detect the same pre-diabetic individuals (9).”

    From Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009 (2009) · cites this paper as [9]

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
Gabir, M. M., Hanson, R. L., Dabelea, D., Imperatore, G., Roumain, J., Bennett, P. H., & Knowler, W. C.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2000-08-01
Volume
23
Issue
8
Pages
1108-1112
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2003294033
Cited by
568
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 22
FWCI
14.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
diabetes diagnosis, American Diabetes Association criteria, WHO criteria, impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, fasting blood glucose, diabetes incidence, Pima Indians, prediabetes, diagnostic thresholds
MeSH terms
Adult, Arizona, Blood Glucose, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Fasting, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Indians, North American, Longitudinal Studies, Predictive Value of Tests, Reference Values, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Voluntary Health Agencies, World Health Organization, Incidence, Prevalence, Glucose Intolerance

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