南非用于诊断妊娠糖尿病的护理点葡萄糖检测的性能。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-09-22 DOI:10.1002/ijgo.15914
L Khambule, C Chikomba, Y Adam, L Khan, C Haldane, B Vetter, J George
{"title":"南非用于诊断妊娠糖尿病的护理点葡萄糖检测的性能。","authors":"L Khambule, C Chikomba, Y Adam, L Khan, C Haldane, B Vetter, J George","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.15914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Lack of accessibility to oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in South Africa means many pregnant women go without testing for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study evaluated point-of-care (POC) glucometers against the laboratory-based glucose method in pregnant women.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women attending the prenatal clinic in Johannesburg who were recommended for the OGTT. OGTTs were conducted as per International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines. Women who consented to the study donated both venous and capillary blood for laboratory-based and POC glucose measurements using seven POC glucometers: I-STAT, Xpress, LDX, VivaChek-Ino, Accu-Chek Active, StatStrip, and Codefree. By assessing sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and comparing Bland-Altman plots, the diagnostic accuracy of each glucose meter was compared with the reference method, the laboratory-based glucose method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were analyzed for 1076 pregnant women. Based on OGTT testing, 83 women had GDM (7.7%). Overall, the POC glucometers performed poorly, with sensitivity ranging from 17.6% to 87.18% and specificity ranging between 62.7% and 99.8%. The AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.79. All POC glucometers showed moderate to poor reliability. Laboratory-based fasting plasma glucose (FPG) surpassed the POC glucometers in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, with values of 94.0%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrated that laboratory-based FPG has the potential to be used as a diagnostic test for GDM and that the POC glucometers cannot replace OGTT laboratory-based measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of point-of-care glucose testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"L Khambule, C Chikomba, Y Adam, L Khan, C Haldane, B Vetter, J George\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijgo.15914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Lack of accessibility to oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in South Africa means many pregnant women go without testing for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study evaluated point-of-care (POC) glucometers against the laboratory-based glucose method in pregnant women.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women attending the prenatal clinic in Johannesburg who were recommended for the OGTT. OGTTs were conducted as per International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines. Women who consented to the study donated both venous and capillary blood for laboratory-based and POC glucose measurements using seven POC glucometers: I-STAT, Xpress, LDX, VivaChek-Ino, Accu-Chek Active, StatStrip, and Codefree. By assessing sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and comparing Bland-Altman plots, the diagnostic accuracy of each glucose meter was compared with the reference method, the laboratory-based glucose method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were analyzed for 1076 pregnant women. Based on OGTT testing, 83 women had GDM (7.7%). Overall, the POC glucometers performed poorly, with sensitivity ranging from 17.6% to 87.18% and specificity ranging between 62.7% and 99.8%. The AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.79. All POC glucometers showed moderate to poor reliability. Laboratory-based fasting plasma glucose (FPG) surpassed the POC glucometers in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, with values of 94.0%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrated that laboratory-based FPG has the potential to be used as a diagnostic test for GDM and that the POC glucometers cannot replace OGTT laboratory-based measurements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15914\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15914","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:南非缺乏口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT),这意味着许多孕妇没有接受妊娠糖尿病(GDM)检查。这项研究对孕妇使用护理点(POC)血糖仪和实验室血糖法进行了评估:这是一项横断面研究,对象是在约翰内斯堡产前诊所就诊并被建议进行 OGTT 的孕妇。OGTT按照国际糖尿病和妊娠研究小组协会(IADPSG)的指南进行。同意参加研究的妇女捐献静脉血和毛细血管血,使用七种 POC 血糖仪进行实验室和 POC 血糖测量:I-STAT、Xpress、LDX、VivaChek-Ino、Accu-Chek Active、StatStrip 和 Codefree。通过评估灵敏度、特异性和接收器工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)以及比较布兰-阿尔特曼图,将每种血糖仪的诊断准确性与参考方法(基于实验室的血糖方法)进行了比较:对 1076 名孕妇的数据进行了分析。根据 OGTT 测试结果,83 名孕妇患有 GDM(7.7%)。总体而言,POC 血糖仪的性能较差,灵敏度在 17.6% 到 87.18% 之间,特异性在 62.7% 到 99.8% 之间。AUC 在 0.59 至 0.79 之间。所有 POC 血糖仪的可靠性均为中等至较差。基于实验室的空腹血浆葡萄糖(FPG)在灵敏度、特异性和AUC方面超过了POC血糖仪,其值分别为94.0%、100%和0.98:我们的研究表明,实验室空腹血浆葡萄糖(FPG)具有作为 GDM 诊断测试的潜力,而 POC 血糖仪不能取代 OGTT 实验室测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance of point-of-care glucose testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in South Africa.

Objective: Lack of accessibility to oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in South Africa means many pregnant women go without testing for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study evaluated point-of-care (POC) glucometers against the laboratory-based glucose method in pregnant women.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women attending the prenatal clinic in Johannesburg who were recommended for the OGTT. OGTTs were conducted as per International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines. Women who consented to the study donated both venous and capillary blood for laboratory-based and POC glucose measurements using seven POC glucometers: I-STAT, Xpress, LDX, VivaChek-Ino, Accu-Chek Active, StatStrip, and Codefree. By assessing sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and comparing Bland-Altman plots, the diagnostic accuracy of each glucose meter was compared with the reference method, the laboratory-based glucose method.

Results: Data were analyzed for 1076 pregnant women. Based on OGTT testing, 83 women had GDM (7.7%). Overall, the POC glucometers performed poorly, with sensitivity ranging from 17.6% to 87.18% and specificity ranging between 62.7% and 99.8%. The AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.79. All POC glucometers showed moderate to poor reliability. Laboratory-based fasting plasma glucose (FPG) surpassed the POC glucometers in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, with values of 94.0%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively.

Conclusion: We demonstrated that laboratory-based FPG has the potential to be used as a diagnostic test for GDM and that the POC glucometers cannot replace OGTT laboratory-based measurements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
期刊最新文献
Routine ultrasound does not improve instrument placement at operative vaginal delivery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Beyond borders: The global impact of violating reproductive human rights. Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines. Menstrual management using the etonogestrel implant in individuals with intellectual disabilities in Joinville, Brazil. Anticoagulant therapy in pregnant women with mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves.
×
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