Glucose: A Simple Molecule That Is Not Simple to Quantify

Gambino, Raymond

doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.094466

Cited by 53 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, FPG and HbA 1c levels were weakly correlated, which is consistent with observations from two other largescale cohort studies [19,20]. As day-profiles of capillary glucose measures correlate much better with HbA 1c [21], the weakness of correlation between FPG and HbA 1c most likely primarily reflects the strong within-individual variability of the former which is considered to be lower for HbA 1c [6,21]. Imprecision of the assays can affect both FPG and HbA 1c measurements [22,23].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…1) were compared to risks of subjects free of diabetes and pre-diabetes according to both FPG and HbA 1c (''Neither''): [1] IFG, [2] HbA 1c -defined pre-diabetes, [3] isolated IFG (''I-IFG''), [4] isolated HbA 1c -defined pre-diabetes (''I-HbA 1c ''), [5] pre-diabetes by both (''both-approach'') and by [6] either (''eitherapproach'') of the measures ( Table 2).…”

Section: Risks For Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, weaknesses in practicality in population-screenings with FPG (required fasting status) and with an OGTT (time requiring and less convenient) may let HbA 1c be the preferred measure for screening for diabetes mellitus type 2 in the future [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prognostic value of haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose for incident diabetes and implications for screening

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this analysis is to compare screening strategies with haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or combined measures in the identification of individuals at high risk for diabetes. Applying American Diabetes Association thresholds for FPG and HbA(1c) screening, 6,803 subjects free of diabetes were classified as non-diabetic, pre-diabetic and possibly diabetic by FPG (<100, 100-125 and >125 mg/dl) and HbA(1c) (<5.7, 5.7-6.4 and >6.4%). Hazard ratios, sensitivity and specificity were estimated for individuals with pre-diabetes with respect to incident diabetes in the following 5 years. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were estimated for levels of FPG ≤ 125 mg/dl and HbA(1c) ≤ 6.4% in diabetes prediction. Although FPG and HbA(1c) screenings poorly agreed in classifying individuals as pre-diabetic, hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] for incident diabetes were similarly increased in univariate models in the two pre-diabetic groups: FPG 100-125 mg/dl, 4.72 [3.69; 6.05]; HbA(1c) 5.7-6.4%, 3.97 [3.05; 5.23]. HbA(1c) and FPG had comparable AUCs (FPG, 0.732; HbA(1c), 0.725) and consequently similar 5-year sensitivities and specificities for their pre-diabetes definitions (when the lower cut-off for HbA(1c)-defined pre-diabetes was increased to a level between 5.8 and 5.9%). Combining HbA(1c) and FPG increased the AUC to 0.778, and a further increase to 0.817 was seen with additional inclusion of conventional risk factors. FPG and HbA(1c) have comparable (yet insufficient) abilities in identifying individuals at high risk for diabetes. Effectiveness of a diabetes screening program could be improved by a risk score including FPG and HbA(1c).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Risks For Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prognostic value of haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose for incident diabetes and implications for screening

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the sample is left unprocessed, the cells in the blood will continue to live on glucose, and consequently the glucose concentration falls by a median of at least 0.5 mmol/l. Furthermore the intra-individual biological variability in fasting plasma glucose is substantial at 12-15% [20,21], and is even greater for 2 h plasma glucose, while it is only 2% for HbA 1c [22]. This is one reason why a diagnosis of diabetes requires two positive glucose-based tests.…”

Section: Do We Need To Define Diabetes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing diabetes—time for a change?

Borch‐Johnsen

Colagiuri

2009

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The observed variation indicates that one-third of the time an individual's glucose sample run in 2 different laboratories could produce results that differ by Ͼ14%. The preanalytical stability of glucose can also be a problem because of glycolysis, even in tubes containing sodium fluoride (6 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%