Diabetes
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valleron, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Rosselin, G. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Valleron, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Rosselin, G. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Diabetes, Vol 24, Issue 6 585-593, Copyright © 1975 by American Diabetes Association


ARTICLES

Agreement and discrepancy in the evaluation of normal and diabetic oral glucose tolerance test

AJ Valleron, E Eschwege, L Papoz and GE Rosselin

Systematic analysis with a five-hour OGTT of 340 subjects representative of people likely to be examined in a center specialized in diabetes detection was performed by multiple discriminant analysis, which provides indices of discrimination for different sets of blood glucose (BG) values. The relative sensitivity and the relative specificity of six different diagnostic methods: Fajans and Conn, Wikerson, WHO, British Diabetic Association, UGDP, and European Study Group of Diabetes Epidemiology were computed, giving a quantitative determination for the degree of discrepancy in the definition of diabetes: only 48 per cent of the subjects are classified in the same way by any of the diagnostic criteria. The time(s) of sampling and the index or indices of OGTT which are the most efficient in screening diabetes were estimated from homogeneous groups of subjects universally recognized as nondiabetic (URND) or as diabetic (URD) according to the different diagnostic methods. Better discriminating power (DP) between URD and URND compared with the maximum DP as measured by D2 of Mahalanobis from the seven BG values of the OGTT is given by the two-hour (70.2 per cent) than by the one-hour (49.5 per cent) BG value when a single value is used; the one-two-hour BG value is the best set of two times (80.7 per cent). The different indices now in use for the classification of the OGTT have been found less effective than the weighted sum of one-two-hour BG values. The difficulty in obtaining highly specific diagnostic tests is discussed in relation to the consequences on a partly automated screening in large populations.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Diabetes Spectr.Home page
M. B. Davidson
How Do We Diagnose Diabetes and Measure Blood Glucose Control?: View 1: (Diagnosing) A Clinical Basis for the Diagnosis of Diabetes
Diabetes Spectr, April 1, 2001; 14(2): 67 - 71.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum
Copyright © 1975 by the American Diabetes Association.