您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报(医学版) ›› 2011, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (4): 158-162.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

5种方法筛查无症状2型糖尿病的效果评价

王孝勇1,李士雪2,孙秀彬2,逄增昌3,乔青4   

  1. 1.山东大学附属省立医院, 济南 250021; 2.山东大学公共卫生学院, 济南 250012;
    3.青岛市疾病预防控制中心, 山东 青岛 266033; 4.芬兰赫尔辛基大学公共卫生系, 赫尔辛基FIN-00014
  • 收稿日期:2011-03-07 发布日期:2011-04-10
  • 通讯作者: 李士雪(1962- ),教授,主要从事社会医学与卫生事业管理研究。 E-mail: shixueli@sdu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:王孝勇(1971- ),男,博士研究生,主要从事社会医学与卫生事业管理研究。 E-mail:xyongwang@126.com
  • 基金资助:

    山东省软科学研究计划资助项目(2008RKB337);山东省医药卫生科技发展计划资助项目(2007HZ049)

Evaluation of effects of five screening methods for  asymptomatic type 2 diabetes

WANG Xiao-yong1, LI Shi-xue2, SUN Xiu-bin2 , PANG Zeng-chang3, QIAO Qing4   

  1. 1. Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250021, China;
    2. School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;
    3. Qingdao Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Qingdao 266033, Shandong, China;
    4. Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland
  • Received:2011-03-07 Published:2011-04-10

摘要:

目的     构建受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线模型,评价空腹毛细血管血糖(FCBG)、空腹血浆血糖(FPG)、糖负荷2h血浆血糖(2HPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)和2型糖尿病(T2DM)危险评分表(DRS)筛查无症状糖尿病患者的效果。 方法     使用2006年青岛糖尿病预防计划中“未被医生告知患有糖尿病”的4070名受试者的横断面调查资料,所有受试者均测FCBG、FPG、2HPG、HbA1c,填写DRS,并行口服糖耐量实验(OGTT),以确诊无症状T2DM。比较上述5种方法筛查无症状T2DM的灵敏度、特异度及ROC曲线下的面积(AUROC)。结果    FCBG筛查无症状T2DM的灵敏度、特异度和AUROC为64.08%、69.81%和0.712;FPG为60.10%、100.00%和0.896; 2HPG为67.12%、100.00%和0.898;HbA1c为40.21%、81.96%和0.673;DRS为61.50%、63.72%和0.679。FPG和2HPG的AUROC与其他3个筛查指标的AUROC差别有统计学意义;FPG与2HPG的AUROC差别无统计学意义;FCBG、HbA1c与DRS的AUROC两两比较差别无统计学意义。结论    FCBG和DRS可作为筛查无症状T2DM简单有效的一线方法;HbA1c 暂不适合于社区T2DM的筛查;适当降低FPG与2HPG筛查切点可提高灵敏度,减少漏诊率。

关键词: 2型糖尿病;筛查;空腹毛细血管血糖;空腹血浆血糖;糖负荷2h血浆血糖;糖化血红蛋白;危险因素评分表;受试者工作特征

Abstract:

Objective    To evaluate effects of five screening methods for asymptomatic type 2 diabetes, i.e. fasting capillary blood glucose (FCBG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG),  2hour plasma glucose (2HPG), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) by establishing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve models.  Methods    Data from a cross-sectional survey of 4070 subjects who underwent the oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) for type 2 diabetes screening in the Qingdao Diabetes Prevention Program in 2006 were analyzed. All the subjects had no history of diabetes and were required to test FCBG, FPG, 2HPG, HbA1c and finished the DRS designed for the program at the same time. The sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of the five methods for detecting asymptomatic diabetes were calculated to evaluate their effects.  Results    The sensitivity, specificity and  AUROC of the five methods were as follows:① FCBG: 64.08%, 69.81% and 0.712; ② FPG:60.10%,100.00% and 0.896; ③ 2HPG: 67.12%,100.00% and 0.898; ④ HbA1c: 40.21%, 81.96% and 0.673; and  ⑤ DRS: 61.50%, 63.72 and 0.679.  FPG and 2HPG had significant differences in AUROC from the other three screening methods (P<0.001).  The difference of AUROC between FPG and 2HPG and the differences of AUROC between FCBG, HbA1c and DRS were not significant (P>0.05).  Conclusion    FCBG and DRS may be simple and effective methods in primary detection for symptomless diabetics. HbA1c is not suitable for screening T2DM at present in the community until conditions permit. If the diagnosis thresholds of FPG and 2HPG are properly lowered, their diagnostic sensitivity will be enhanced and the rate of missed diagnosis reduced.

Key words: Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Screening; Fasting capillary blood glucose; Fasting plasma glucose; 2-hour plasma glucose; Glycosylated haemoglobin; Diabetes risk score; Receiver operating characteristic

中图分类号: 

  • R589.1
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!