ArticlePloS one2022
Glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose tests in the screening of outpatients for diabetes and abnormal glucose regulation in Uganda: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Glycated haemoglobin versus fasting plasma glucose for type 2 diabetes point of care screening: a decision model cost-effectiveness analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Utilization of basic diabetes mellitus services among adult patients with diabetes mellitus at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital diabetes clinic, Uganda: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo understand the utility of glycated haemoglobin (HBA1C) in screening for diabetes and Abnormal Glucose Regulation (AGR) in primary care, we compared its performance to that of the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test.
methodsThis was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study conducted in eastern Uganda. Patients eligible for inclusion were consecutive adults, 30-75 years, receiving care at the outpatient department of a general hospital in eastern Uganda. We determined the sensitivity, specificity and optimum cut-off points for HBA1C and FPG tests using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a clinical reference standard.
resultsA total of 1659 participants underwent FPG testing of whom 310 were also HBA1C and OGTT tested. A total of 113 tested positive for diabetes and 168 for AGR on the OGTT. At recommended cut-off points for diabetes, the HBA1C and FPG tests had comparable sensitivity [69.8% (95% CI 46.3-86.1) versus 62.6% (95% CI 41.5-79.8), respectively] and specificity [98.6% (95% CI 95.4-99.6) versus 99.4% (95% CI 98.9-99.7), respectively]. Similarly, the sensitivity of HBA1C and the FPG tests for Abnormal Glucose Regulation (AGR) at ADA cut-offs were comparable [58.9% (95% CI 46.7-70.2) vs 47.7% (95% CI 37.3-58.4), respectively]; however, the HBA1C test had lower specificity [70.7% (95% CI 65.1-75.8)] than the FPG test [93.5% (95% CI 88.6-96.4)]. At the optimum cut-offs points for diabetes [45.0 mmol/mol (6.3%) for HBA1C and 6.4 mmol/L (115.2 mg/dl) for FPG], HBA1C and FPG sensitivity [71.2% (95% CI 46.9-87.8) versus 72.7% (95% CI 49.5-87.8), respectively] and specificity [95.1% (95% CI91.8 97.2) versus 98.7% (95% CI 98.0 99.2), respectively] were comparable. Similarly, at the optimum cut-off points for AGR [42.0 mmol/mol (6.0%) for the HBA1C and 5.5 mmol/l (99.0 mg/dl) for the FPG test], HBA1C and FPG sensitivity [42.3% (95% CI 31.8-53.6) and 53.2 (95% CI 43.1-63.1), respectively] and specificity [89.1% (95% CI 84.1 92.7) and 92.7% (95% CI 91.0 94.1), respectively] were comparable. DISCUSSION: HBA1C is a viable alternative diabetes screening and confirmatory test to the FPG test; however, the utility of both tests in screening for prediabetes in this outpatient population is limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.