Comparison of the ability to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus between glycated albumin or fructosamine and hemoglobin A1c-a meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Satoru Kodama, Takaho Yamada, Noriko Yagyuda, Nanako Tanaka, Sijia Wu, Efrem D'Avila Ferreira, Khin Laymon, Kazuya Fujihara, Chika Horikawa, Yoko Yachi, Hirohito Sone
{"title":"Comparison of the ability to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus between glycated albumin or fructosamine and hemoglobin A1c-a meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.","authors":"Satoru Kodama, Takaho Yamada, Noriko Yagyuda, Nanako Tanaka, Sijia Wu, Efrem D'Avila Ferreira, Khin Laymon, Kazuya Fujihara, Chika Horikawa, Yoko Yachi, Hirohito Sone","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02894-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the gold standard for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hemoglobin A1c (A1C), glycated albumin (GA), and fructosamine (Fruc) have the potential to conveniently classify pregnant women as having or not having GDM because two or more measurements are not necessary, unlike with OGTT. Compared with A1C, GA or Fruc, which reflects more recent glycemic indices, may more accurately detect GDM. This meta-analysis compared the diagnostic ability of GDM between GA or Fruc and A1C.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Comprehensive literature searches were performed for studies published up to Sep.11, 2023. Selected studies were limited to those that attempted to identify GDM using both GA and/or Fruc and A1C to compare these indicators. Two authors extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Study quality was assessed by a revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy in studies (QUADUS-2). The dataset consisting of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives was pooled with a bivariate between-study model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Pooled relative sensitivity and specificity based on a random-effects model were calculated to compare the diagnostic ability of A1C and GA and/or Fruc for GDM.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>There were 20 eligible studies. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 5.11 (2.30-11.37) and 0.53 (0.40-0.71), respectively, if GA or Fruc was used and 3.75 (2.61-11.39) and 0.53 (0.42-0.66), respectively, if A1C was used. Relative sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) for GA or Fruc compared with A1C was 1.00 (0.94-1.07) and 0.99 (0.97-1.01), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The insufficiently low value of the negative likelihood ratio did not support the single use of GA/Fruc or A1C in screening for GDM suggesting the necessity of combining other risk factors with glycemic indicators. Although there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic ability between GA or Fruc and A1C, the value of the positive likelihood ratio indicated that GA or Fruc was somewhat more useful than A1C as a rule-in test for the diagnosis of GDM.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023461975.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12243362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02894-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the gold standard for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hemoglobin A1c (A1C), glycated albumin (GA), and fructosamine (Fruc) have the potential to conveniently classify pregnant women as having or not having GDM because two or more measurements are not necessary, unlike with OGTT. Compared with A1C, GA or Fruc, which reflects more recent glycemic indices, may more accurately detect GDM. This meta-analysis compared the diagnostic ability of GDM between GA or Fruc and A1C.

Method: Comprehensive literature searches were performed for studies published up to Sep.11, 2023. Selected studies were limited to those that attempted to identify GDM using both GA and/or Fruc and A1C to compare these indicators. Two authors extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Study quality was assessed by a revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy in studies (QUADUS-2). The dataset consisting of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives was pooled with a bivariate between-study model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Pooled relative sensitivity and specificity based on a random-effects model were calculated to compare the diagnostic ability of A1C and GA and/or Fruc for GDM.

Result: There were 20 eligible studies. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 5.11 (2.30-11.37) and 0.53 (0.40-0.71), respectively, if GA or Fruc was used and 3.75 (2.61-11.39) and 0.53 (0.42-0.66), respectively, if A1C was used. Relative sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) for GA or Fruc compared with A1C was 1.00 (0.94-1.07) and 0.99 (0.97-1.01), respectively.

Conclusion: The insufficiently low value of the negative likelihood ratio did not support the single use of GA/Fruc or A1C in screening for GDM suggesting the necessity of combining other risk factors with glycemic indicators. Although there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic ability between GA or Fruc and A1C, the value of the positive likelihood ratio indicated that GA or Fruc was somewhat more useful than A1C as a rule-in test for the diagnosis of GDM.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023461975.

糖化白蛋白或果糖胺与血红蛋白a1c诊断妊娠糖尿病能力的比较——诊断研究的荟萃分析。
背景:虽然口服糖耐量试验(OGTT)是诊断妊娠糖尿病(GDM)的金标准,但血红蛋白A1c (A1c)、糖化白蛋白(GA)和果糖胺(Fruc)有可能方便地将孕妇分类为患有或没有GDM,因为与OGTT不同,不需要进行两次或两次以上的检测。与A1C相比,反映最新血糖指标的GA或Fruc可能更准确地检测GDM。本荟萃分析比较了GA或Fruc与A1C对GDM的诊断能力。方法:对截至2023年9月11日发表的文献进行综合检索。选定的研究仅限于那些试图使用GA和/或Fruc和A1C来比较这些指标来识别GDM的研究。两位作者提取了这些数据。分歧由第三位作者解决。研究质量通过修订后的研究诊断准确性质量评估工具(QUADUS-2)进行评估。由真阳性、假阳性、假阴性和真阴性组成的数据集采用双变量研究间模型和分层汇总接收者操作特征模型进行合并。计算基于随机效应模型的合并相对敏感性和特异性,比较A1C、GA和/或Fruc对GDM的诊断能力。结果:有20项符合条件的研究。如果使用GA或Fruc, 95%置信区间(CI)的合并阳性和阴性似然比分别为5.11(2.30-11.37)和0.53(0.40-0.71),如果使用A1C,分别为3.75(2.61-11.39)和0.53(0.42-0.66)。与A1C相比,GA或Fruc的相对敏感性和特异性(95% CI)分别为1.00(0.94-1.07)和0.99(0.97-1.01)。结论:阴性似然比值不够低,不支持单独使用GA/Fruc或A1C筛查GDM,建议将其他危险因素与血糖指标结合使用。虽然GA或Fruc与A1C的诊断能力没有统计学差异,但阳性似然比的值表明GA或Fruc在诊断GDM方面比A1C更有用。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42023461975。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信