| Title |
The changing relationship between HbA1c and FPG according to different FPG ranges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40618-015-0389-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
X. Guan, L. Zheng, G. Sun, X. Guo, Y. Li, H. Song, F. Tian, Y. Sun |
| Abstract |
Since the American Diabetes Association included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the diagnostic criteria for diabetes in 2010, the clinical use of HbA1c has remained controversial. We explored the use of HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes and intermediate hyperglycemia in comparison with fasting plasma glucose (FPG). We screened 3710 adult subjects (mean age = 55.24 years) comprising 1704 males and 2006 females. We drew an receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the ability of HbA1c to diagnose diabetes and intermediate hyperglycemia according to FPG. We used Kappa coefficient and Pearson's correlation coefficient to evaluate the relationship between HbA1c and FPG in different FPG ranges. The areas under ROC curve to diagnose diabetes and intermediate hyperglycemia were 0.859 (95 % CI 0.827-0.892) and 0.633 (95 % CI 0.615-0.651). The kappa coefficients between FPG and HbA1c for diagnosis of diabetes and intermediate hyperglycemia were 0.601 (P < 0.001) and 0.104 (P < 0.001). The Pearson's correlation coefficient of FPG and HbA1c was 0.640 (P < 0.001), but when we classified FPG as normal, intermediate hyperglycemia and diabetes, the coefficients became 0.07 (P = 0.002), 0.185 (P < 0.001) and 0.760 (P < 0.001), respectively. The relationship between HbA1c and FPG changed according to the different FPG ranges. When FPG was higher, the relationship was stronger. HbA1c and FPG were highly consistent in diagnosing diabetes, but they were not in predicting intermediate hyperglycemia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#916
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,914
of 284,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.