Oral glucose tolerance test: Unnecessary requests and suitable conditions for the test

0Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is an important test for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) that needs criteria to be requested and analytical performance evaluation. Objectives: Determine the prevalence of unnecessary OGTT requests and analyze patients' suitability criteria for glucose load. Method: Cross-sectional, descriptive and analytical study conducted with 554 patients who had OGTT requested from January to April 2018. Data from laboratory tests were collected through Complab Advanced version 6.9.6 system, organized into a Microsoft® Excel table and analyzed using Epi InfoTM, version 7.2.1.0. The accuracy of the glucometer paired analysis was performed by determinations of Student's t test, using SPSS version of IBM 21TM. Patients with a previous diagnosis of DM and/or who showed OGTT request as a screening test along with blood glucose or glycated hemoglobin were classified as unnecessary requests. Results: Among the studied patients, 17% (94) had unnecessary OGTT requests, 53 (53.4%) patients had blood glucose ≥ 140 mg/dl and previous DM and/or OGTT used as screening; 41 (43.6 %) patients with capillary blood glucose < 140 mg/dl, but with a diagnosis of DM. The glucometer proved to be accurate with a high correlation (r2 = 0.97, p < 0.0001) with serum glucose. Approaches during screening and capillary blood glucose prevented unnecessary exposure to glucose overload in 67% (63) of the patients. Conclusion: The high prevalence of unnecessary OGTT requests underscores the need of criteria for OGTT requesting and the standardization of procedures for screening in the exam.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Silva, G. A., Souza, C. L., & Oliveira, M. V. (2020). Oral glucose tolerance test: Unnecessary requests and suitable conditions for the test. Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial, 56. https://doi.org/10.5935/1676-2444.20200010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free