Cited by 100Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Metabolism

Open access
Colagiuri, Stephen, Hussain, Zafirul, Zimmet, Paul, Cameron, Adrian, Shaw, Jonathan·2004·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To assess the Australian protocol for identifying undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose metabolism. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The Australian screening protocol recommends a stepped approach to detecting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes based on assessment of risk status, measurement of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in individuals at risk, and further testing according to FPG. The performance of and variations to this protocol were assessed in a population-based sample of 10,508 Australians. RESULTS—The protocol had a sensitivity of 79.9%, specificity of 79.9%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.7% for detecting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and sensitivity of 51.9% and specificity of 86.7% for detecting impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG). To achieve these diagnostic rates, 20.7% of the Australian adult population would require an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Increasing the FPG cut point to 6.1 mmol/l (110 mg/dl) or using HbA1c instead of FPG to determine the need for an OGTT in people with risk factors reduced sensitivity, increased specificity and PPV, and reduced the proportion requiring an OGTT. However, each of these protocol variations substantially reduced the detection of IGT or IFG. CONCLUSIONS—The Australian screening protocol identified one new case of diabetes for every 32 people screened, with 4 of 10 people screened requiring FPG measurement and 1 in 5 requiring an OGTT. In addition, 1 in 11 people screened had IGT or IFG. Including HbA1c measurement substantially reduced both the number requiring an OGTT and the detection of IGT or IFG.

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.27.2.367

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Even lowering the cutoff value to 5.3% resulted in a sensitivity of only 78% among individuals with at least one risk factor in an Australian national population study.

    “Even lowering the cutoff value to 5.3%, resulted in a sensitivity of only 78% among individuals with at least one risk factor in a study conducted in Australia national population [38].”

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
Colagiuri, S., Hussain, Z., Zimmet, P., Cameron, A., & Shaw, J.
Affiliations
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (AU)
  • International Diabetes Institute, Caufield, Victoria, Australia
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
367-371
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2163157019
Cited by
100
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Diabetes Australia Research Trust
  • Queensland Health
  • Diabetes Australia
  • Kidney Health Australia
  • Servier
  • Tasmanian Department of Health
  • Merck Sharp and Dohme
  • Cilag
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
type 2 diabetes screening, impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, fasting blood glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, HbA1c, sensitivity and specificity, risk factors, mass screening
MeSH terms
Australia, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, 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