ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2024
Cutoff Values for Glycated Albumin, 1,5-Anhydroglucitol, and Fructosamine as Alternative Markers for Hyperglycemia.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associations between glycated albumin and current measures of glycaemic control in Saudi adults.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlycated albumin (GA), 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), and fructosamine have attracted considerable interest as markers of hyperglycemia. This study aimed to evaluate the optimal cutoff values for GA, 1,5-AG, and fructosamine and to determine their respective diagnostic efficacies in relation to hyperglycemia.
methodsWe enrolled 6012 individuals who had undergone fasting blood glucose (FBG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests along with at least one alternative glycemic marker. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the upper or lower limit of the reference range (97.5 or 2.5 percentiles) were used to ascertain the optimal cutoff values. Follow-up data from healthy individuals were used to identify patients who developed diabetes mellitus (DM).
resultsThe ROC cutoff values for GA, 1,5-AG, and fructosamine were 13.9%, 13.3 μg/mL, and 278 μmol/L, respectively, with corresponding area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.860, 0.879, and 0.834. The upper limits of the reference intervals for GA and fructosamine were 15.1% and 279 μmol/L, respectively, and the lower limit for 1,5-AG was 5.3 μg/mL. Among the GA cutoff values, the ROC cutoff had the highest sensitivity. Analyzing the follow-up data showed that lowering the GA cutoff from 16.0% to 13.9% identified an additional 40 people with DM progression.
conclusionsLowering the GA cutoff values significantly increased the sensitivity of DM diagnosis and enhanced its potential as a screening marker by identifying more individuals with diabetes progression. Conversely, modifications to the cutoff values for 1,5-AG and fructosamine did not confer any discernible diagnostic or predictive advantages.
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.