4.7 Review

Factors affecting A1C in non-diabetic individuals: Review and meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 445, 期 -, 页码 107-114

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.03.024

关键词

Glycated hemoglobin; Anemia; Variant hemoglobin; Uremia; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Research Incentive Fund (FIPE) of the Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) [PQG/1015019]
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  4. Coordination for the Enhancement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES)
  5. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (PIBIC CNPq/HCPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analyses of studies that evaluated the possible effects of anemia, variant hemoglobin, and uremia on A1C levels in individuals without diabetes (DM). Medline and Embase were searched for studies that measured A1C values in groups with and without iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and/or iron deficiency (ID), variant hemoglobin and/or uremia by standardized methods. The difference between A1C levels in the groups with and without interferences was obtained by using random-effects meta-analysis and the effect size was presented as absolute difference of means (95% CI). Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, providing data from 11,176 participants without DM. There were no statistically significant differences in A1C in the presence of IDA/ID, HbS, and uremia by HPLC and uremia by immunoassay [0.79% (95% IC - 0.39; 1.97), - 0.13% (95% IC - 0.51; 0.26), 0.15% (95% CI - 0.58; 0.88) and -0.19% (95% CI - 0.78; 0.40), respectively]. The effects of HbAS and uremia on A1C levels are within the expected individual variation and should not affect A1C results to diagnose DM. However, the effects of IDA/ID remain inconclusive and further studies are needed to clarify the glycation mechanisms in individuals with IDA/ID without diabetes. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据