BACKGROUND: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. DESIGN: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n=311 subjects) by using the FAO/WHO method. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. RESULTS: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC) reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P=0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The between-laboratory GI values (mean+/-SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3+/-10.5 and 33.2+/-7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P=0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P=0.006, r2=0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P<0.001), the glucose analysis method (P=0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P=0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P=0.013, r2=0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is approximately 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV<30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. DESIGN: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n=311 subjects) by using the FAO/WHO method. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. RESULTS: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC) reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P=0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The between-laboratory GI values (mean+/-SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3+/-10.5 and 33.2+/-7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P=0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P=0.006, r2=0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P<0.001), the glucose analysis method (P=0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P=0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P=0.013, r2=0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is approximately 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV<30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
Authors: A Ferrer-Mairal; C Peñalva-Lapuente; I Iglesia; L Urtasun; P De Miguel-Etayo; S Remón; E Cortés; L A Moreno Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Simon Ballance; Stefan Sahlstrøm; Per Lea; Nina E Nagy; Petter V Andersen; Tzvetelin Dessev; Sarah Hull; Maria Vardakou; Richard Faulks Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: E E Blaak; J-M Antoine; D Benton; I Björck; L Bozzetto; F Brouns; M Diamant; L Dye; T Hulshof; J J Holst; D J Lamport; M Laville; C L Lawton; A Meheust; A Nilson; S Normand; A A Rivellese; S Theis; S S Torekov; S Vinoy Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Nirupa R Matthan; Lynne M Ausman; Huicui Meng; Hocine Tighiouart; Alice H Lichtenstein Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 7.045