Evidence Hub

Reassessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of HbA1c and Glucose for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Baechle C, Stoye FV, Shokri-Mashhadi N, Klötzsch AT, Bongaerts B, Hoyer A, Kuss O, Landgraf R et al.

Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2026

276,203 participants

Abstract

Aims: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 1-h plasma glucose (1hPG) against the 2-h plasma glucose standard (≥ 11.1 mmol/L) in adults without previously diagnosed diabetes.

Methods: A comprehensive search of Medline and CENTRAL (until 09.2025) identified population-based studies considering all available cutoff values for these markers. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using bivariate random-effects models. Summary ROC curves and optimal cutoff values were derived using a Weibull accelerated failure time approach and the Youden index. Subgroup analyses explored potential differences across continents. The certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results: Fifty-eight studies including 276,203 participants were synthesised. Overall, FPG showed higher diagnostic accuracy than HbA1c, with an optimal cutoff of 6.3 mmol/L [95% confidence interval 6.0 mmol/L; 6.5 mmol/L], yielding 73% [68%; 78%] sensitivity and 91% [89%; 94%] specificity. The optimal HbA1c cutoff was 47 [42; 49] mmol/mol (i.e., 6.5% [6.0%; 6.6%]), with 62% [51%; 80%] sensitivity and 92% [77%; 96%] specificity. The CoE was low. Across all regions, FPG consistently outperformed HbA1c. Optimal FPG cutoff values ranged from 5.3 mmol/L in North America to 6.5 mmol/L in Asian countries, and from 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) in Asian countries to 45 mmol/mol (6.3%) in North America for HbA1c.

Conclusions: These results…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 276,203 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free