Cargando…
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
AIM: Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are used as diagnostic tests for diagnosing diabetes mellitus, but it is unclear which test has the best diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902703/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36760402 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1016381 |
_version_ | 1784883322316390400 |
---|---|
author | Duong, Khanh N. C. Tan, Chia Jie Rattanasiri, Sasivimol Thakkinstian, Ammarin Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn |
author_facet | Duong, Khanh N. C. Tan, Chia Jie Rattanasiri, Sasivimol Thakkinstian, Ammarin Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn |
author_sort | Duong, Khanh N. C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are used as diagnostic tests for diagnosing diabetes mellitus, but it is unclear which test has the best diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and the combination of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl (HbA1c| FPG), compared with Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) ≥ 200 mg/dl for diagnosis diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to September 24th, 2021. Inclusion criteria were any study design comparing HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl with OGTT ≥ 200 mg/dl as the reference test. Data were independently extracted, risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was done using a bivariate regression model using the Bayesian framework. The relative ranking of all tests was also assessed. RESULTS: Out of 5,026 studies, 73 were included. The sensitivities of HbA1c, FPG, and HbA1c| FPG were 0.51 [95% Credible Interval (CrI): 0.43, 0.58], 0.49 (95% CrI: 0.43, 0.55), and 0.64 (95% CrI: 0.51, 0.75), while the specificities were 0.96 (95% CrI: 0.94, 0.97), 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.97, 0.98), and 0.95 (95% CrI: 0.88, 0.98), respectively. The corresponding positive likelihood ratios (LR) were 13.36 (95% CrI: 8.91, 20.72), 21.94 (95% CrI: 15.04, 31.88), and 11.78 (95% CrI: 5.48, 26.56). HbA1c| FPG is superior based on sensitivity, whereas FPG is ranked best based on specificity and positive LR. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl should be recommended as the best diagnostic test for diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021282856. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9902703 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99027032023-02-08 Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis Duong, Khanh N. C. Tan, Chia Jie Rattanasiri, Sasivimol Thakkinstian, Ammarin Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine AIM: Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are used as diagnostic tests for diagnosing diabetes mellitus, but it is unclear which test has the best diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and the combination of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl (HbA1c| FPG), compared with Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) ≥ 200 mg/dl for diagnosis diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to September 24th, 2021. Inclusion criteria were any study design comparing HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl with OGTT ≥ 200 mg/dl as the reference test. Data were independently extracted, risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was done using a bivariate regression model using the Bayesian framework. The relative ranking of all tests was also assessed. RESULTS: Out of 5,026 studies, 73 were included. The sensitivities of HbA1c, FPG, and HbA1c| FPG were 0.51 [95% Credible Interval (CrI): 0.43, 0.58], 0.49 (95% CrI: 0.43, 0.55), and 0.64 (95% CrI: 0.51, 0.75), while the specificities were 0.96 (95% CrI: 0.94, 0.97), 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.97, 0.98), and 0.95 (95% CrI: 0.88, 0.98), respectively. The corresponding positive likelihood ratios (LR) were 13.36 (95% CrI: 8.91, 20.72), 21.94 (95% CrI: 15.04, 31.88), and 11.78 (95% CrI: 5.48, 26.56). HbA1c| FPG is superior based on sensitivity, whereas FPG is ranked best based on specificity and positive LR. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl should be recommended as the best diagnostic test for diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021282856. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9902703/ /pubmed/36760402 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1016381 Text en Copyright © 2023 Duong, Tan, Rattanasiri, Thakkinstian, Anothaisintawee and Chaiyakunapruk. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Medicine Duong, Khanh N. C. Tan, Chia Jie Rattanasiri, Sasivimol Thakkinstian, Ammarin Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
topic | Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902703/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36760402 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1016381 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duongkhanhnc comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT tanchiajie comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT rattanasirisasivimol comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT thakkinstianammarin comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT anothaisintaweethunyarat comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT chaiyakunapruknathorn comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracyfordiabetesdiagnosisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis |