糖化白蛋白在糖尿病:诊断测试准确性的荟萃分析

F. C. Chume, P. A. C. Freitas, L. G. Schiavenin, A. L. Pimentel, J. L. Camargo
{"title":"糖化白蛋白在糖尿病:诊断测试准确性的荟萃分析","authors":"F. C. Chume, P. A. C. Freitas, L. G. Schiavenin, A. L. Pimentel, J. L. Camargo","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2022-0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Guidelines recommend the diagnosis of diabetes should be based on either plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) findings. However, lately studies have advocated glycated albumin (GA) as a useful alternative to HbA1c. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall diagnostic accuracy of GA for the diagnosis of diabetes. Content We searched for articles of GA diabetes diagnostic accuracy that were published up to August 2021. Studies were selected if reported an oral glucose tolerance test as a reference test, measured GA levels by enzymatic methods, and had data necessary for 2 × 2 contingency tables. A bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. Summary This meta-analysis included nine studies, totaling 10,007 individuals. Of those, 3,106 had diabetes. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity caused by a non-threshold effect and reported different GA optimal cut-offs for diagnosing diabetes. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.93 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.844, indicating a good level of overall accuracy for the diagnosis of diabetes. The effect of the GA threshold on diagnostic accuracy was reported at 15.0% and 17.1%. The optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes with GA was estimated as 17.1% with a pooled sensitivity of 55.1% (95% CI 36.7%–72.2%) and specificity of 94.4% (95% CI 85.3%–97.9%). Outlook GA has good diabetes diagnostic accuracy. A GA threshold of 17.1% may be considered optimal for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed individuals.","PeriodicalId":10388,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glycated albumin in diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy\",\"authors\":\"F. C. Chume, P. A. C. Freitas, L. G. Schiavenin, A. L. Pimentel, J. L. Camargo\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2022-0105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives Guidelines recommend the diagnosis of diabetes should be based on either plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) findings. However, lately studies have advocated glycated albumin (GA) as a useful alternative to HbA1c. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall diagnostic accuracy of GA for the diagnosis of diabetes. Content We searched for articles of GA diabetes diagnostic accuracy that were published up to August 2021. Studies were selected if reported an oral glucose tolerance test as a reference test, measured GA levels by enzymatic methods, and had data necessary for 2 × 2 contingency tables. A bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. Summary This meta-analysis included nine studies, totaling 10,007 individuals. Of those, 3,106 had diabetes. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity caused by a non-threshold effect and reported different GA optimal cut-offs for diagnosing diabetes. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.93 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.844, indicating a good level of overall accuracy for the diagnosis of diabetes. The effect of the GA threshold on diagnostic accuracy was reported at 15.0% and 17.1%. The optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes with GA was estimated as 17.1% with a pooled sensitivity of 55.1% (95% CI 36.7%–72.2%) and specificity of 94.4% (95% CI 85.3%–97.9%). Outlook GA has good diabetes diagnostic accuracy. A GA threshold of 17.1% may be considered optimal for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed individuals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

【摘要】目的指南推荐糖尿病的诊断应基于血浆葡萄糖或糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)结果。然而,最近的研究提倡糖化白蛋白(GA)作为HbA1c的有用替代品。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以确定GA诊断糖尿病的总体诊断准确性。我们检索了截至2021年8月发表的关于GA糖尿病诊断准确性的文章。选择口服葡萄糖耐量试验作为参考试验,用酶法测量GA水平,并具有2 × 2列联表所需的数据的研究。采用双变量模型计算汇总估计。本荟萃分析包括9项研究,共计10,007人。其中,3106人患有糖尿病。研究显示了非阈值效应引起的大量异质性,并报告了不同的遗传算法诊断糖尿病的最佳截止值。合并诊断优势比(DOR)为15.93,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.844,表明诊断糖尿病的总体准确性较高。GA阈值对诊断准确率的影响分别为15.0%和17.1%。GA诊断糖尿病的最佳临界值估计为17.1%,合并敏感性为55.1% (95% CI 36.7%-72.2%),特异性为94.4% (95% CI 85.3%-97.9%)。展望遗传算法对糖尿病的诊断具有良好的准确性。17.1%的GA阈值可能被认为是诊断以前未确诊个体糖尿病的最佳阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Glycated albumin in diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Abstract Objectives Guidelines recommend the diagnosis of diabetes should be based on either plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) findings. However, lately studies have advocated glycated albumin (GA) as a useful alternative to HbA1c. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall diagnostic accuracy of GA for the diagnosis of diabetes. Content We searched for articles of GA diabetes diagnostic accuracy that were published up to August 2021. Studies were selected if reported an oral glucose tolerance test as a reference test, measured GA levels by enzymatic methods, and had data necessary for 2 × 2 contingency tables. A bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. Summary This meta-analysis included nine studies, totaling 10,007 individuals. Of those, 3,106 had diabetes. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity caused by a non-threshold effect and reported different GA optimal cut-offs for diagnosing diabetes. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.93 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.844, indicating a good level of overall accuracy for the diagnosis of diabetes. The effect of the GA threshold on diagnostic accuracy was reported at 15.0% and 17.1%. The optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes with GA was estimated as 17.1% with a pooled sensitivity of 55.1% (95% CI 36.7%–72.2%) and specificity of 94.4% (95% CI 85.3%–97.9%). Outlook GA has good diabetes diagnostic accuracy. A GA threshold of 17.1% may be considered optimal for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed individuals.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Screening for sickle cell disease: focus on newborn investigations An automatic analysis and quality assurance method for lymphocyte subset identification Discriminating signal from noise: the biological variation of circulating calprotectin in serum and plasma Traumatic brain injury 43rd annual conference of the association of clinical biochemists in Ireland (ACBI 2021)
×
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