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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Improving Detection of Prediabetes in Children and Adults: Using Combinations of Blood Glucose Tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00260 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ike S. Okosun, J. Paul Seale, Rodney Lyn, Y. Monique Davis-Smith |
| Abstract |
The combined use of fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c test is associated with significantly higher diagnostic rates of prediabetes across age, race/ethnicity, and BMI than using only one test.Combined use of fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and oral glucose tolerance test do not improve the overall and gender-specific prediabetes prevalence beyond what is observed using a combination fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c test.A redefined hemoglobin A1c test that incorporates racial/ethnic, gender, age, and BMI differences may provide a better way to use hemoglobin A1c test in population-based and clinical settings. To determine combinations of blood glucose tests: oral glucose tolerance (OGT), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) that are associated with highest diagnostic rates of prediabetes in non-diabetic American children and adults. The 2007-2008 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys data were used for this study. Overall and specific prevalence of prediabetes (defined using OGT + FPG, OGT + HbA1C, HbA1C + FPG, and OGT + FPG + HbA1C tests) were determined across age, race/ethnicity, sex, and BMI categories. FPG + HbA1C test was associated with significantly higher diagnostic rates of prediabetes across age, race/ethnicity, and BMI. Estimates of overall prevalence of prediabetes using OGT + FPG, OGT + HbA1C, HbA1C + FPG, and OGT + FPG + HbA1C tests were 20.3, 24.2, 33, and 34.3%, respectively. Compared to OGT + FPG, the use of HbA1C + FPG test in screening was associated with 44.8, 135, 38.6, and 35.9% increased prevalence of prediabetes in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Mexican-American, and other racial/ethnic men, respectively. The corresponding values in women were 67.8, 140, 37.2, and 42.6%, respectively. Combined use of all blood glucose tests did not improve the overall and gender-specific prediabetes prevalence beyond what was observed using HbA1C + FPG test. HbA1C criteria were associated with higher diagnosis rates of prediabetes than FPG and OGT tests in non-diabetic American children and adults. Using a combination of HbA1C and FPG test in screening for prediabetes reduces intrinsic systematic bias in using just HbA1C testing and offers the benefits of each test. A well-defined HbA1C that takes into consideration race/ethnicity, gender, age, and body mass index may improve detection of prediabetes in population and clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. 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 07 December 2015.
All research outputs
#325,589
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#136
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,770
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#2
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.