SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative accuracy of 1-hour post-load plasma glucose, glycated albumin, and conventional glycemic measures for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Non-Fasting Glucose Measures and Their Clinical Significance in Diabetes Diagnosis and Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk Prediction: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A sweet danger: the silent link between hyperinsulinemia and gastric cancer.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Article
- The association between heatwave exposure and the risk of incident diabetes in middle-aged and older adults: a cohort study based on CHARLS.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Relationship between C-reactive protein triglyceride glucose index and cardiovascular disease risk: a cross-sectional analysis with machine learning.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Empowering Pharmacists in Type 2 Diabetes Care: Opportunities for Prevention, Counseling, and Therapeutic Optimization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Diabetes mellitus among HIV patients on ART at Woldia comprehensive specialized hospital, Northeast Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional primary care study of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of type 2 diabetes self-care and their association with sociodemographic and sociocultural factors in Cali, Colombia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Fasting Plasma Glucose Levels within the High Normal Range are Associated with a Significantly Increased Risk of Future Dysglycemia in Transfusion-Dependent β Thalassemia: A Decade-Long Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Application of Clinical Blood Metabogram to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Metabolites · 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are used as diagnostic tests for diagnosing diabetes mellitus, but it is unclear which test has the best diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and the combination of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl (HbA1c| FPG), compared with Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) ≥ 200 mg/dl for diagnosis diabetes. Materials and methods: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to September 24th, 2021. Inclusion criteria were any study design comparing HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl with OGTT ≥ 200 mg/dl as the reference test. Data were independently extracted, risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was done using a bivariate regression model using the Bayesian framework. The relative ranking of all tests was also assessed. Results: Out of 5,026 studies, 73 were included. The sensitivities of HbA1c, FPG, and HbA1c| FPG were 0.51 [95% Credible Interval (CrI): 0.43, 0.58], 0.49 (95% CrI: 0.43, 0.55), and 0.64 (95% CrI: 0.51, 0.75), while the specificities were 0.96 (95% CrI: 0.94, 0.97), 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.97, 0.98), and 0.95 (95% CrI: 0.88, 0.98), respectively. The corresponding positive likelihood ratios (LR) were 13.36 (95% CrI: 8.91, 20.72), 21.94 (95% CrI: 15.04, 31.88), and 11.78 (95% CrI: 5.48, 26.56). HbA1c| FPG is superior based on sensitivity, whereas FPG is ranked best based on specificity and positive LR. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl should be recommended as the best diagnostic test for diabetes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021282856.
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.