Literature DB >> 11679454

Performance of recommended screening tests for undiagnosed diabetes and dysglycemia.

D B Rolka1, K M Narayan, T J Thompson, D Goldman, J Lindenmayer, K Alich, D Bacall, E M Benjamin, B Lamb, D O Stuart, M M Engelgau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance, in settings typical of opportunistic and community screening programs, of screening tests currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) for detecting undiagnosed diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Volunteers aged > or =20 years without previously diagnosed diabetes (n = 1,471) completed a brief questionnaire and underwent recording of postprandial time and measurement of capillary blood glucose (CBG) with a portable sensor. Participants subsequently underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test; fasting serum glucose (FSG) and 2-h postload serum glucose (2-h SG) concentrations were measured. The screening tests we studied included the ADA risk assessment questionnaire, the recommended CBG cut point of 140 mg/dl, and an alternative CBG cut point of 120 mg/dl. Each screening test was evaluated against several diagnostic criteria for diabetes (FSG > or =126 mg/dl, 2-h SG > or =200 mg/dl, or either) and dysglycemia (FSG > or =110 mg/dl, 2-h SG > or =140 mg/dl, or either).
RESULTS: Among all participants, 10.7% had undiagnosed diabetes (FSG > or =126 or 2-h SG > or =200 mg/dl), 52.1% had a positive result on the questionnaire, 9.5% had CBG > or =140 mg/dl, and 18.4% had CBG > or =120 mg/dl. The questionnaire was 72-78% sensitive and 50-51% specific for the three diabetes diagnostic criteria; CBG > or =140 mg/dl was 56-65% sensitive and 95-96% specific, and CBG > or =120 mg/dl was 75-84% sensitive and 86-90% specific. CBG > or =120 mg/dl was 44-62% sensitive and 89-90% specific for dysglycemia.
CONCLUSIONS: Low specificity may limit the usefulness of the ADA questionnaire. Lowering the cut point for a casual CBG test (e.g., to 120 mg/dl) may improve sensitivity and still provide adequate specificity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11679454     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.11.1899

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  42 in total

1.  How to diagnose diabetes.

Authors:  Gina Agarwal
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Sequential screening for diabetes--evaluation of a campaign in Swiss community pharmacies.

Authors:  Kurt E Hersberger; Andrea Botomino; Maxime Mancini; Rudolf Bruppacher
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2006-09-27

3.  Strategies to identify adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes Prevention Program.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  An innovative multiphased strategy to recruit underserved adults into a randomized trial of a community-based diabetes risk reduction program.

Authors:  Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Julissa Cabrera; Rachel Freyre; Melanie Grossman; Natalie Alvarez; Deepika Mathur; Maria Guerrero; Adriana T Delgadillo; Alka M Kanaya; Anita L Stewart
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2011-06

5.  Prevalence of overweight and obesity and their association with hypertension and diabetes mellitus in an Indo-Asian population.

Authors:  Tazeen H Jafar; Nish Chaturvedi; Gregory Pappas
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-10-24       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Performance of a Random Glucose Case-Finding Strategy to Detect Undiagnosed Diabetes.

Authors:  Michael E Bowen; Lei Xuan; Ildiko Lingvay; Ethan A Halm
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Primary prevention of type 2 diabetes: integrative public health and primary care opportunities, challenges and strategies.

Authors:  Lawrence W Green; Frederick L Brancati; Ann Albright
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.267

8.  Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk.

Authors:  Heejung Bang; Alison M Edwards; Andrew S Bomback; Christie M Ballantyne; David Brillon; Mark A Callahan; Steven M Teutsch; Alvin I Mushlin; Lisa M Kern
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Random plasma glucose in serendipitous screening for glucose intolerance: screening for impaired glucose tolerance study 2.

Authors:  David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; Jovonne K Foster; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Rincy M Varughese; Circe W Tsui; David D Koch; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; Lawrence S Phillips
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Value of risk stratification to increase the predictive validity of HbA1c in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the US population.

Authors:  Adit A Ginde; Enrico Cagliero; David M Nathan; Carlos A Camargo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.