Effects of diabetes definition on global surveillance of diabetes prevalence and diagnosis: a pooled analysis of 96 population-based studies with 331 288 participants
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, ISSN: 2213-8587, Vol: 3, Issue: 8, Page: 624-637
2015
- 106Citations
- 165Usage
- 457Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations106
- Citation Indexes105
- CrossRef105
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Usage165
- Downloads118
- Abstract Views47
- Captures457
- Readers457
- 457
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Is Diabetes Becoming Mainly a Third World Problem?
Global rates of incident diabetes seem to be on the decline in some populations, researchers reported, although experts questioned whether the evidence could be considered
Article Description
Diabetes has been defined on the basis of different biomarkers, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2hOGTT), and HbA 1c. We assessed the effect of different diagnostic definitions on both the population prevalence of diabetes and the classification of previously undiagnosed individuals as having diabetes versus not having diabetes in a pooled analysis of data from population-based health examination surveys in different regions. We used data from 96 population-based health examination surveys that had measured at least two of the biomarkers used for defining diabetes. Diabetes was defined using HbA 1c (HbA 1c ≥6·5% or history of diabetes diagnosis or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs) compared with either FPG only or FPG-or-2hOGTT definitions (FPG ≥7·0 mmol/L or 2hOGTT ≥11·1 mmol/L or history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated diabetes prevalence, taking into account complex survey design and survey sample weights. We compared the prevalences of diabetes using different definitions graphically and by regression analyses. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of diabetes diagnosis based on HbA 1c compared with diagnosis based on glucose among previously undiagnosed individuals (ie, excluding those with history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated sensitivity and specificity in each survey, and then pooled results using a random-effects model. We assessed the sources of heterogeneity of sensitivity by meta-regressions for study characteristics selected a priori. Population prevalence of diabetes based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was correlated with prevalence based on FPG alone (r=0·98), but was higher by 2–6 percentage points at different prevalence levels. Prevalence based on HbA 1c was lower than prevalence based on FPG in 42·8% of age–sex–survey groups and higher in another 41·6%; in the other 15·6%, the two definitions provided similar prevalence estimates. The variation across studies in the relation between glucose-based and HbA 1c -based prevalences was partly related to participants' age, followed by natural logarithm of per person gross domestic product, the year of survey, mean BMI, and whether the survey population was national, subnational, or from specific communities. Diabetes defined as HbA 1c 6·5% or more had a pooled sensitivity of 52·8% (95% CI 51·3–54·3%) and a pooled specificity of 99·74% (99·71–99·78%) compared with FPG 7·0 mmol/L or more for diagnosing previously undiagnosed participants; sensitivity compared with diabetes defined based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was 30·5% (28·7–32·3%). None of the preselected study-level characteristics explained the heterogeneity in the sensitivity of HbA 1c versus FPG. Different biomarkers and definitions for diabetes can provide different estimates of population prevalence of diabetes, and differentially identify people without previous diagnosis as having diabetes. Using an HbA 1c -based definition alone in health surveys will not identify a substantial proportion of previously undiagnosed people who would be considered as having diabetes using a glucose-based test. Wellcome Trust, US National Institutes of Health.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213858715001291; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(15)00129-1; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84938199196&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109024; http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213858715001291; http://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2213858715001291?httpAccept=text/xml; http://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2213858715001291?httpAccept=text/plain; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213858715001291; https://epubs.rcsi.ie/psycholart/90; https://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=psycholart; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587%2815%2900129-1; http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(15)00129-1/abstract; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSession?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Fjournals%2Flandia%2Farticle%2FPIIS2213-8587%2815%2900129-1%2Fabstract&rc=0&code=lancet-site; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thelancet.com%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253Daaa_7fsyCzQ04-ZPgjnxv%2526MAID%253DArEdGYcIXsdYInKv9%25252B9EHA%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLF%25252FdY29RpN4fA%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D600183144%2526RD%253DRD; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thelancet.com%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253Daaa_7fsyCzQ04-ZPgjnxv%2526MAID%253DArEdGYcIXsdYInKv9%25252B9EHA%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLF%25252FdY29RpN4fA%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D600183144%2526RD%253DRD; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/consumeSsoCookie?redirectUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSharedSessionAction%3FJSESSIONID%3Daaa_7fsyCzQ04-ZPgjnxv%26MAID%3DArEdGYcIXsdYInKv9%252B9EHA%253D%253D%26SERVER%3DWZ6myaEXBLF%252FdY29RpN4fA%253D%253D%26ORIGIN%3D600183144%26RD%3DRD&acw=&utt=
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know