Table 4.
Agreement between diabetes classifications for the OGTT and the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test in U.S. women and men analyzed separately and combined, 2009–2016.
OGTT Classification | Fasting Plasma Glucose Classification | ||
---|---|---|---|
All Subjects | FPG: Normal | FPG: Prediabetes | FPG: Diabetes |
OGTT: Normal | n = 3595 | n = 2043 | n = 40 |
n = 5678 | row %: 64.8 | row %: 34.7 | row %: 0.5 |
OGTT: Prediabetes | n = 381 | n = 758 | n = 82 |
n = 1221 | row %: 30.9 | row %: 63.4 | row %: 5.8 |
OGTT: Diabetes | n = 37 | n = 248 | n = 228 |
n = 513 | row %: 8.9 | row %: 46.8 | row %: 44.3 |
Column: n = 7412 | Column: n = 4013 | Column: n = 3049 | Column: n = 350 |
Women Only | FPG: Normal | FPG: Prediabetes | FPG: Diabetes |
OGTT: Normal | n = 2130 | n = 781 | n = 11 |
n = 2922 | row: 73.4% | row: 26.3% | row: 0.3% |
OGTT: Prediabetes | n = 232 | n = 360 | n = 33 |
n = 625 | row: 36.8% | row: 59.2% | row: 4.0% |
OGTT: Diabetes | n = 30 | n = 143 | n = 89 |
n = 262 | row: 13.5% | row: 52.8% | row: 33.7% |
Column: n = 3809 | Column: n = 2392 | Column: n = 1284 | Column: n = 133 |
Men Only | FPG: Normal | FPG: Prediabetes | FPG: Diabetes |
OGTT: Normal | n = 1465 | n = 1262 | n = 29 |
n = 2756 | row: 55.3% | row: 43.8% | row: 0.8% |
OGTT: Prediabetes | n = 149 | n = 398 | n = 49 |
n = 596 | row: 24.3% | row: 68.0% | row: 7.7% |
OGTT: Diabetes | n = 7 | n = 105 | n = 139 |
n = 251 | row: 3.0% | row: 39.0% | row: 57.9% |
Column: n = 3603 | Column: n = 1621 | Column: n = 1765 | Column: n = 217 |
Note: SE: standard error of the weighted Kappa. For the 2-h OGTT, “Normal” was defined as a plasma glucose level of <140 mg/dL (<7.8 mmol/L), “Prediabetes” was 140–199 mg/dL (7.8–11.0 mmol/L), and “Diabetes” was defined as a glucose level ≥ 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L). For the FPG (fasting plasma glucose) assessment, “Normal” was <100 mg/dL (<7.0 mmol/L), “Prediabetes” was 100–125 mg/dL (5.6–6.9 mmol/L), and a diagnosis of “Diabetes” was defined as a glucose level ≥ 126 mg/dL (≥7.0 mmol/L). Because NHANES sample weights were applied to each participant, the sample size of each category should be interpreted using row percentages, which have been adjusted based on individual sample weights, not “n”. Results using “n” do not reflect the effect of the NHANES sample weights.