2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2010.01.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Glicada para el diagnóstico de la diabetes, ¿un estándar universal?

Abstract: In August 2009, an ad hoc international expert committee created by the major world diabetic association, published an eagerly awaited consensus. In this, it recommended the general use of the haemoglobin A1c fraction for the diagnosis of diabetes, encouraging its standardisation and proposing a 6.5% cut-off. In this article, the diagnostic methods for diabetes, as well as the advantages, limitations and controversies of this new recommendation are reviewed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 25 publications
(15 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…23 Our results and other recent publications in different countries have recognized severe problems in this regard and their comments are in opposition to the statement of a completed globalization in HbA1c measurement. [24][25][26] Again, our evaluation, based on an experimental model of daily clinical practice, in an adequate sample size, has shown a critical issue concerning diabetes management by different statistical methods; a very poor concordance or agreement in HbA1c results was found in more than half of the participating laboratories. The robust clinical significance of our results would not change with involvement of more clinical laboratories or subjects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…23 Our results and other recent publications in different countries have recognized severe problems in this regard and their comments are in opposition to the statement of a completed globalization in HbA1c measurement. [24][25][26] Again, our evaluation, based on an experimental model of daily clinical practice, in an adequate sample size, has shown a critical issue concerning diabetes management by different statistical methods; a very poor concordance or agreement in HbA1c results was found in more than half of the participating laboratories. The robust clinical significance of our results would not change with involvement of more clinical laboratories or subjects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%