Comparing American Diabetes Association (ADA) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) diagnostic criteria for intermediate hyperglycaemia and diabetes in the SHiDS study
Authors' conclusion
The ADA criteria can identify individuals with elevated haemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) levels when the 1-hour plasma glucose (1-h PG) stay within the normal range, while the IDF criteria can identify subjects with impaired insulin sensitivity and secretion when fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour plasma glucose (2-h PG) and HbA1c values are in the normal range.
Study context
- Population
- Adults from the Shanghai High-risk Diabetic Screen (SHiDS) study
- Participants
- 5,387 adults
- Exposure
- ADA vs IDF diagnostic criteria for intermediate hyperglycaemia and diabetes
- Outcome
- Prevalence of IH and diabetes, insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity and curve patterns by glucose tolerance category under ADA vs IDF criteria
Methodological detailsfive-point 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)
- Five-point 75 g OGTT
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic agreement between ADA and IDF criteria
Diagnosed consistently under ADA/IDF criteria
3,729 subjects
Discrepant classification for diabetes
941 subjects
Discrepant classification for IH
717 subjects
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Comparing ADA and IDF diagnostic criteria for intermediate hyperglycaemia and diabetes in the SHiDS study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 18 December 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →