1969
DOI: 10.2307/4593558
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproducibility of Glucose Tolerance in 101 Nondiabetic Women

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
1

Year Published

1973
1973
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
1
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…glucose tolerance test can be used to study the influence of various factors, such as drugs, on glucose tolerance and glucose-induced insulin response. Also, the oral glucose tolerance test showed reasonably good reproducibility in our study, again in contrast to earlier results (14).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…glucose tolerance test can be used to study the influence of various factors, such as drugs, on glucose tolerance and glucose-induced insulin response. Also, the oral glucose tolerance test showed reasonably good reproducibility in our study, again in contrast to earlier results (14).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…For these reasons the present population, which includes a high proportion of women tested while on combined oral contraceptives, presents an ideal group, as it is known that about 15% of such women have 'abnormal' glucose tolerance. In the studies of McDonald et al (1965) and McDonald et al (1969) OGTT variability was assessed for each individual studied by taking the mean and standard deviation of a number of tests. This provided an estimate of the range of variability encountered but did not enable a prediction to be made as to where any given subject might lie within this range.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While clinical diabetes may usually be diagnosed with confidence by this test, marginal abnormalities of glucose tolerance, which may also be of pathological significance, are difficult to interpret. Previous authors (McDonald et al, 1965(McDonald et al, , 1969West et al, 1964) have drawn attention to the marked day-to-day variation which may occur in individual test responses despite rigid standardization of the test procedure, and express the need for caution in the interpretation of a single test. The multiplicity of criteria suggested for the classification of tests as normal or abnormal (Committee on Statistics of the American Diabetes Association, 1969) bears witness to the difficulties involved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for the failure to show a consistent association between CVD and FPG or PCPG may re-flect the well-known large intraindividual variation and poor reproducibility of individual glucose tests, leading to substantial misclassification (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(35)(36)(37)(38). The reason for the failure to show a consistent association between CVD and FPG or PCPG may re-flect the well-known large intraindividual variation and poor reproducibility of individual glucose tests, leading to substantial misclassification (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(35)(36)(37)(38).…”
Section: Table 2-rhs (Proportional Hazards Model) For All-cause Cvdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods are imprecise because of large intraindividual variation, such that single measures of blood glucose poorly characterize usual glycemia for individuals (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19). These methods are imprecise because of large intraindividual variation, such that single measures of blood glucose poorly characterize usual glycemia for individuals (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%