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 ≥...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duong, Khanh N. C., Tan, Chia Jie, Rattanasiri, Sasivimol, Thakkinstian, Ammarin, Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat, Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
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