IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gunjeet Kaur
  • P V M Lakshmi
  • Ashu Rastogi
  • Anil Bhansali
  • Sanjay Jain
  • Yot Teerawattananon
  • Henna Bano
  • Shankar Prinja

Abstract

Aim: This systematic review aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests for early detection of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in previously undiagnosed adults. Methods: This systematic review included published studies that included one or more index tests (random and fasting tests, HbA1c) for glucose detection, with 75-gram Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (or 2-hour post load glucose) as a reference standard (PROSPERO ID CRD42018102477). Seven databases were searched electronically (from their inception up to March 9, 2020) accompanied with bibliographic and website searches. Records were manually screened and full text were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, data extraction was done using standardized form and quality assessment of studies using QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was done using bivariate model using Stata 14.0. Optimal cut offs in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the tests were analysed using R software. Results: Of 7,151 records assessed by title and abstract, a total of 37 peer reviewed articles were included in this systematic review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for diagnosing diabetes with HbA1c (6.5%; venous sample; n = 17 studies) were 50% (95% CI: 42–59%), 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3–98.4), 18.32 (95% CI: 11.06–30.53) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), respectively. However, the optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed adults with HbA1c was estimated as 6.03% with pooled sensitivity of 73.9% (95% CI: 68–79.1%) and specificity of 87.2% (95% CI: 82–91%). The optimal cut-off for Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) was estimated as 104 milligram/dL (mg/dL) with a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 74.6–88.1%) and specificity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.2–92.5%). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that at present recommended threshold of 6.5%, HbA1c is more specific and less sensitive in diagnosing the newly detected diabetes in undiagnosed population from community settings. Lowering of thresholds for HbA1c and FPG to 6.03% and 104 mg/dL for early detection in previously undiagnosed persons for screening purposes may be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Gunjeet Kaur & P V M Lakshmi & Ashu Rastogi & Anil Bhansali & Sanjay Jain & Yot Teerawattananon & Henna Bano & Shankar Prinja, 2020. "Diagnostic accuracy of tests for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242415
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242415
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242415&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242415?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabriela Cavagnolli & Ana Laura Pimentel & Priscila Aparecida Correa Freitas & Jorge Luiz Gross & Joíza Lins Camargo, 2017. "Effect of ethnicity on HbA1c levels in individuals without diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Reem A Mustafa & Wojtek Wiercioch & Nancy Santesso & Adrienne Cheung & Barbara Prediger & Tejan Baldeh & Alonso Carrasco-Labra & Romina Brignardello-Petersen & Ignacio Neumann & Patrick Bossuyt & Amit, 2015. "Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Rice, D.P. & Hodgson, T.A., 1982. "The value of human life revisited," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 72(6), pages 536-538.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Skinner & Ned Hartfiel & Mary Lynch & Aled Wyn Jones & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2023. "Social Return on Investment of Social Prescribing via a Diabetes Technician for Preventing Type 2 Diabetes Progression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-11, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kunichika Matsumoto & Yinghui Wu & Takefumi Kitazawa & Shigeru Fujita & Kanako Seto & Tomonori Hasegawa, 2018. "Cost of illness of hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan: A time trend and future projections," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Procolo Di Bonito & Maria Rosaria Licenziati & Domenico Corica & Malgorzata Wasniewska & Anna Di Sessa & Emanuele Miraglia del Giudice & Anita Morandi & Claudio Maffeis & Maria Felicia Faienza & Enza , 2023. "Which Is the Most Appropriate Cut-Off of HbA1c for Prediabetes Screening in Caucasian Youths with Overweight or Obesity?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-9, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.