Suppr超能文献

1997年美国糖尿病协会标准与1985年世界卫生组织标准在诊断糖耐量异常方面的比较:霍恩研究中的一致性不佳。

The 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria versus the 1985 World Health Organization criteria for the diagnosis of abnormal glucose tolerance: poor agreement in the Hoorn Study.

作者信息

de Vegt F, Dekker J M, Stehouwer C D, Nijpels G, Bouter L M, Heine R J

机构信息

Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Diabetes Care. 1998 Oct;21(10):1686-90. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.10.1686.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Recently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) introduced new diagnostic criteria. These new criteria are based on fasting plasma glucose levels, avoiding the burdensome oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). We compared the 1997 ADA criteria with the 1985 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria with respect to the prevalence of diabetes and the cardiovascular risk profile in the population of the Hoorn Study

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Hoorn Study is a population-based survey of 2,484 men and women, aged 50-75 years. An OGTT was performed and cardiovascular risk factors were determined in 2,378 subjects without known diabetes. Subjects were categorized according to both sets of diagnostic criteria.

RESULTS

Although the prevalence of diabetes was similar for both sets of criteria, 47 of 120 (39.2%) subjects who were diagnosed with diabetes according to the 1997 ADA criteria were not classified as having diabetes when using the 1985 WHO criteria. Similarly, of 285 subjects diagnosed with impaired fasting glucose by the 1997 ADA criteria, 195 (68.4%) were classified as having normal glucose tolerance by the 1985 WHO criteria. The overall agreement was poor (kappa 0.33; 95% CI 0.28-0.38). Subjects who were diagnosed as having diabetes by either set of criteria had an adverse cardiovascular risk profile, which was between the cardiovascular risk profiles of concordant normal and concordant diabetic subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study both sets of criteria diagnosed a similar number of diabetic subjects, but many of the subjects shifted between glucose intolerance categories. With either set of criteria, a considerable number of subjects at risk of developing diabetes and subjects carrying an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, as reflected by an adverse cardiovascular risk profile, will be missed.

摘要

目的

最近,美国糖尿病协会(ADA)推出了新的诊断标准。这些新标准基于空腹血糖水平,避免了繁琐的口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)。我们在霍恩研究人群中,比较了1997年ADA标准与1985年世界卫生组织(WHO)标准在糖尿病患病率和心血管风险状况方面的差异。

研究设计与方法

霍恩研究是一项针对2484名年龄在50 - 75岁的男性和女性的人群调查。对2378名无糖尿病史的受试者进行了OGTT,并测定了心血管危险因素。根据两套诊断标准对受试者进行分类。

结果

尽管两套标准诊断出的糖尿病患病率相似,但按照1997年ADA标准被诊断为糖尿病的120名受试者中,有47名(39.2%)在使用1985年WHO标准时未被归类为糖尿病患者。同样,在按照1997年ADA标准被诊断为空腹血糖受损的285名受试者中,有195名(68.4%)按照1985年WHO标准被归类为糖耐量正常。总体一致性较差(kappa 0.33;95%可信区间0.28 - 0.38)。被任何一套标准诊断为患有糖尿病的受试者都有不良的心血管风险状况,介于一致正常和一致糖尿病受试者的心血管风险状况之间。

结论

在本研究中,两套标准诊断出的糖尿病患者数量相似,但许多受试者在葡萄糖不耐受类别之间发生了变化。无论采用哪一套标准,都会遗漏相当数量有患糖尿病风险的受试者以及那些心血管风险状况不良所反映的心血管疾病风险增加的受试者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验