• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[美国糖尿病诊断新指南对荷兰有何影响?]

[What are the consequences of the new American guidelines for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in The Netherlands?].

作者信息

Stolk R P, de Vegt F, Heine R J

机构信息

Julius Centrum voor Patiëntgebonden Onderzoek, Universiteit Utrecht.

出版信息

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1998 Jan 31;142(5):222-5.

PMID:9557033
Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recently issued new guidelines for classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The main change is the decrease of the liminal value of the fasting plasma glucose level from 7.8 to 7.0 mmol/l. A fasting level of 6.1-6.9 mmol/l indicates impaired glucose tolerance (which eliminates the category 'impaired glucose tolerance', which was established on the basis of a slightly increased 2-hour glucose level after ingestion of 75 g glucose). Consequently, the ADA criteria render the oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) redundant for clinical practice. Given these criteria, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus among the general Dutch population will change only slightly, but the number of persons to be classified in a different category after their introduction is considerable: 39.2% of the ADA diabetics are not diabetics according to the current WHO classification, while 38.1% of the WHO diabetics are not diabetics according to the ADA criteria. The criteria established by the ADA accommodate clinical practice, in which the GTT is hardly used anymore. The WHO still has to decide about whether or not accepting the ADA guidelines.

摘要

美国糖尿病协会(ADA)最近发布了糖尿病分类和诊断的新指南。主要变化是将空腹血糖水平的临界值从7.8 mmol/l降至7.0 mmol/l。空腹血糖水平为6.1 - 6.9 mmol/l表明糖耐量受损(这取消了“糖耐量受损”类别,该类别是基于摄入75克葡萄糖后2小时血糖水平略有升高而设立的)。因此,ADA标准使口服葡萄糖耐量试验(GTT)在临床实践中变得多余。基于这些标准,荷兰普通人群中糖尿病的患病率只会略有变化,但引入这些标准后被归类到不同类别的人数相当可观:根据ADA标准,39.2%的ADA糖尿病患者按照目前的WHO分类并非糖尿病患者,而按照WHO标准,38.1%的WHO糖尿病患者按照ADA标准并非糖尿病患者。ADA制定的标准符合临床实践情况,在临床实践中GTT已很少使用。WHO仍需决定是否接受ADA指南。

相似文献

1
[What are the consequences of the new American guidelines for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in The Netherlands?].[美国糖尿病诊断新指南对荷兰有何影响?]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1998 Jan 31;142(5):222-5.
2
[Comparison of ADA and WHO diagnostic criteria for diabetes diagnosis and other categories of glucose intolerance ].[美国糖尿病协会(ADA)与世界卫生组织(WHO)糖尿病诊断及其他类别糖耐量异常诊断标准的比较]
Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2002 Oct;13(76):316-20.
3
New classification and criteria for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The Australasian Working Party on Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes Mellitus.糖尿病诊断的新分类与标准。澳大利亚糖尿病诊断标准工作小组。
N Z Med J. 1999 Apr 23;112(1086):139-41.
4
Performance indicators and validity of serum fructosamine assay as a diagnostic test in a screening program for diabetes mellitus.血清果糖胺检测作为糖尿病筛查项目诊断试验的性能指标及有效性
Saudi Med J. 2003 May;24(5):477-84.
5
Effects of the WHO 1985 criteria and the proposed new diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of diabetes in an elderly population.世界卫生组织1985年标准及拟议的新诊断标准对老年人群糖尿病患病率的影响。
Scand J Public Health. 2000 Dec;28(4):266-9.
6
Fasting cut-offs in determining the prevalence of diabetes and intermediate glucose abnormality in a non-obese population.非肥胖人群中确定糖尿病患病率和中间血糖异常的空腹血糖切点
Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull. 2004 Dec;30(3):105-14.
7
Gestational diabetes: implications of variation in post-partum follow-up criteria.妊娠期糖尿病:产后随访标准差异的影响
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Apr 15;113(2):149-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.021.
8
Comparison of The World Health Organization (WHO) two-step strategy and OGTT for diabetes mellitus screening.世界卫生组织(WHO)两步法策略与口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)用于糖尿病筛查的比较。
Acta Med Indones. 2004 Jan-Mar;36(1):3-7.
9
Comparison of differing diagnostic criteria for diabetes: experience from a New Zealand community laboratory.糖尿病不同诊断标准的比较:来自新西兰一家社区实验室的经验
N Z Med J. 1999 Sep 10;112(1095):339-41.
10
The DECODE study. Diabetes epidemiology: collaborative analysis of diagnostic criteria in Europe.DECODE研究。糖尿病流行病学:欧洲诊断标准的协作分析。
Diabetes Metab. 2000 Sep;26(4):282-6.