A universal, agreeable criterion for the diagnosis of diabetes has always
been of interest to the specialists. The suitability of fasting blood sugar (FBS),
instead of oral glucose tolerance test, due to its simplicity and low cost, has
always been considered. The purpose of this study was to compare the
results of fasting blood sugar (FBS) for diagnosing diabetes with those of 2 hr
postprandial (PP) glucose test advocated by WHO.
This retrospective study was carried out on 2033 subjects 30 years of age
and older in Islamshahr who had been selected by step-wise random
sampling. The subjects comprising 835 males (41%) and 1198 females (59%)
were studied. FBS and 2 hr PP glucose (75 g glucose administered orally)
levels were examined and diabetic patients were determined based on the
WHO criteria. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria were then
employed and the results of these two systems were compared.
150 cases (7.4%) out of 2033 subjects, were dubbed diabetic based on
2hr PP glucose levels of 200 mg/dl and over. On the other hand 119 subjects
(5.9%) were classified as diabetic taking FBS of 126 mg/dl and higher. Out of
119 subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) comprising subjects with FBS
ranging 110-125 mg/dl, 39.5% had normal glucose tolerance test results,
40.3% were IGT and 20.2% were diabetic. Out of 1795 subjects who were
classified normal based on the ADA criteria, 24 persons were diabetic and
198 subjects were IGT.
Therefore the results show , that the new ADA criterion is unable to
diagnose a number of diabetic patients and more so with the IGT subjects.
Based on these findings, FBS measurement is insufficient and GTT is
necessary.
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |