Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Nov 20;15(11):e0242415.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242415. eCollection 2020.

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

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Gunjeet Kaur et al. PLoS One. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Forest plot of HbA1c 6.5% for detecting diabetes.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plot of FPG 126 mg/dL for detecting diabetes.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Summary receiver operating characteristic plot of HbA1c (6.5%) for detecting diabetes.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Summary receiver operating characteristic plot of FPG (126 mg/dL) for detecting diabetes.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve showing the optimal cut off of HbA1c 6.03% for detecting diabetes.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve showing the optimal cut off of FPG 104 mg/dL for detecting diabetes.

References

    1. UN. Future We Want 2012 [Available from: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassemb....
    1. WHO. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020 World Health Organization; 2013. Report No.: 9241506237.
    1. WHO. Definition of regional groupings. [Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/definition_regions/en/.
    1. Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet (London, England). 2017;389(10085):2239–51. - PubMed
    1. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Ali MK, Griffin SJ, Narayan KM. Screening for type 2 diabetes and dysglycemia. Epidemiologic reviews. 2011;33:63–87. 10.1093/epirev/mxq020 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types