Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

The different methods of assessing glycemic variability, quality of glycemic control and glycemic risk cannot be interpreted as equivalent in clinical practice

dc.contributorPontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Medicina Interna. Grupo de Investigación de Enfermedades Crónicas del Adulto
dc.contributorPontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Epidemiología Clínica y Bioestadística
dc.creatorMuñoz Velandia, Oscar Mauricio
dc.creatorGómez García, Ana María
dc.creatorGarcía Jaramillo, Maira
dc.creatorLeon Vargas, Fabián Mauricio
dc.creatorRuíz, Álvaro J
dc.date2020-05-13T21:16:03Z
dc.date2020-05-13T21:16:03Z
dc.date2018
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-30T14:06:17Z
dc.date.available2025-10-30T14:06:17Z
dc.identifierhttps://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1871402118300651?token=DCB4B2F68EB57F80EBA6001928A1C65AA2B3B2562A5C9B16FEA7726A2799AF89C695A8E6FD669F8D2DC01E4E89479C4F
dc.identifier1871-4021
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10554/49218
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2018.03.028
dc.identifier.urihttp://test.repositoriodigital.com:8080/handle/123456789/194011
dc.descriptionQ2
dc.description555-561
dc.descriptionObjective Several methods are available to calculate glycemic variability (GV), quality of glycemic control (QGC) and glycemic risk (GR). However, clinicians do not easily interpret these data. This study evaluates whether the results of the different methods can be interpreted as equivalent. Methods A prospective study was performed including outpatients with DMT2 evaluated at the San Ignacio Hospital and the Colombian Diabetes Association in Bogotá, Colombia. From six-day continuous glucose monitoring data, GV (SD, CV, IQR, MODD, MAGE), QGC (M-value, J-index) and GR (LBGI, HBGI) were calculated. Reference values ​​were generated, classifying the patients according to GV control quartiles (excellent, good, fair or poor). The concordance between the different indices was evaluated. Results In total, 140 patients (68.9 ± 11.2 years) were included. The agreement levels (Kappa) between GV indices were moderate, 0.40 (CI 95%:0.29–0.51), 0.42 (CI 95%:0.31–0.53) and 0.39 (CI 95%:0.28–0.50), for CV versus SD, IQR and CONGA respectively. The levels of agreement between GV and QGC indices were minimal (Kappa CV vs. M-value, 0.15CI 95%:0.046–0.26) and weak between the GV and GR indices (Kappa CVvs.LBGI 0.37CI95%:0.26–0.48). The estimators did not improve significantly when the analysis was performed with linearly weighted or quadratic weighted Kappa. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that the concordance between the clinical interpretation of the different GV, QGC and GR indices is poor, suggesting that they cannot be assumed as equivalent, so different indices evaluating different concepts, must be evaluated simultaneously to analyze adequately each patient. New studies are needed to evaluate which of the methods better predicts hypoglycemia and microvascular or macrovascular complications.
dc.formatPDF
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formatPapel / Electrónico
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.sourceDiabetes & Metabolic Syndrome; Vol. 12 Núm. 4 (2018)
dc.subjectType 2 diabetes
dc.subjectContinuous glucose monitoring
dc.subjectGlucose variability
dc.subjectConcordance
dc.titleThe different methods of assessing glycemic variability, quality of glycemic control and glycemic risk cannot be interpreted as equivalent in clinical practice
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.typeArtículo de revista


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem