Variations in oral glucose tolerance tests: the 100- versus 75-g controversy.

L E Brustman, B D Gela, M Moore, K D Reilly, O Langer
{"title":"Variations in oral glucose tolerance tests: the 100- versus 75-g controversy.","authors":"L E Brustman,&nbsp;B D Gela,&nbsp;M Moore,&nbsp;K D Reilly,&nbsp;O Langer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the results of a 75-g, 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test with those of a traditional 100-g oral glucose tolerance test. Thirty-two pregnant women participated in the study. Each patient served as her own control, undergoing both a 100- and a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test within 1 week. Despite a strong positive correlation between the results of the two tests, the 1-, 2-, and 3-hour glucose values of the 100-g glucose load were significantly higher than the comparable values of the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Sixteen of 32 women were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes mellitus using the National Diabetes Data Group criteria and the 100-g oral glucose tolerance test, whereas only 6 of these 16 women would have been identified with the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. If data from one test are to be compared with the other, new thresholds of glucose abnormality need to be developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":77227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians : the official publication of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians : the official publication of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared the results of a 75-g, 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test with those of a traditional 100-g oral glucose tolerance test. Thirty-two pregnant women participated in the study. Each patient served as her own control, undergoing both a 100- and a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test within 1 week. Despite a strong positive correlation between the results of the two tests, the 1-, 2-, and 3-hour glucose values of the 100-g glucose load were significantly higher than the comparable values of the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Sixteen of 32 women were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes mellitus using the National Diabetes Data Group criteria and the 100-g oral glucose tolerance test, whereas only 6 of these 16 women would have been identified with the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. If data from one test are to be compared with the other, new thresholds of glucose abnormality need to be developed.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服葡萄糖耐量试验的变化:100克与75克之争
本研究比较了75 g、3小时口服葡萄糖耐量试验和传统的100 g口服葡萄糖耐量试验的结果。32名孕妇参与了这项研究。每个患者作为自己的对照,在1周内进行100和75 g口服葡萄糖耐量试验。尽管两项试验结果之间存在很强的正相关关系,但100g葡萄糖负荷的1、2和3小时葡萄糖值明显高于75g口服葡萄糖耐量试验的相应值。32名妇女中有16人根据国家糖尿病数据组标准和100克口服葡萄糖耐量试验被诊断为妊娠糖尿病,而这16名妇女中只有6人通过75克口服葡萄糖耐量试验被确诊。如果要将一项测试的数据与另一项测试的数据进行比较,则需要制定新的葡萄糖异常阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Return on investment analysis for a computer-based patient record in the outpatient clinic setting. Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in African Americans. Early detection and screening for ovarian cancer: does physician specialty matter? Adiposity changes in youth with a family history of cardiovascular disease: impact of ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status. Health disparities research--a model for conducting research on cancer disparities: characterization and reduction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1