↓ Skip to main content

HbA1c Alone Is a Poor Indicator of Cardiometabolic Risk in Middle-Aged Subjects with Pre-Diabetes but Is Suitable for Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
HbA1c Alone Is a Poor Indicator of Cardiometabolic Risk in Middle-Aged Subjects with Pre-Diabetes but Is Suitable for Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0134154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seán R. Millar, Ivan J. Perry, Catherine M. Phillips

Abstract

Glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement is recommended as an alternative to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for the diagnosis of pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes. However, evidence suggests discordance between HbA1c and FPG. In this study we examine a range of metabolic risk features, pro-inflammatory cytokines, acute-phase response proteins, coagulation factors and white blood cell counts to determine which assay more accurately identifies individuals at increased cardiometabolic risk. This was a cross-sectional study involving a random sample of 2,047 men and women aged 46-73 years. Binary and multinomial logistic regression were employed to examine risk feature associations with pre-diabetes [either HbA1c levels 5.7-6.4% (39-46 mmol/mol) or impaired FPG levels 5.6-6.9 mmol/l] and type 2 diabetes [either HbA1c levels >6.5% (>48 mmol/mol) or FPG levels >7.0 mmol/l]. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the ability of HbA1c to discriminate pre-diabetes and diabetes defined by FPG. Stronger associations with diabetes-related phenotypes were observed in pre-diabetic subjects diagnosed by FPG compared to those detected by HbA1c. Individuals with type 2 diabetes exhibited cardiometabolic profiles that were broadly similar according to diagnosis by either assay. Pre-diabetic participants classified by both assays displayed a more pro-inflammatory, pro-atherogenic, hypertensive and insulin resistant profile. Odds ratios of having three or more metabolic syndrome features were also noticeably increased (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 2.8-5.8) when compared to subjects diagnosed by either HbA1c (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.8) or FPG (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.7-5.1) separately. In middle-aged Caucasian-Europeans, HbA1c alone is a poor indicator of cardiometabolic risk but is suitable for diagnosing diabetes. Combined use of HbA1c and FPG may be of additional benefit for detecting individuals at highest odds of type 2 diabetes development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 27%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#10,685,094
of 14,054,251 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#101,748
of 147,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,730
of 337,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,549
of 4,955 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,054,251 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 337,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,955 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.