الفهرس 
Material and methodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 117 |  |  |
| | | from | 117 | | |
Abstract
The aim of our work was to compare the double
sample test ( fasting and two hours after 75g oral glucoso load) which was produced by the WHO in 198o, and
the other criteria of the oral glucose tolerance test which
are:
-The National Diabetes Data group. - The British Diabetes Association.
-The European Epidemiology Study group.
-The United States Public Health service.
-Fajans and Conn (university of Michigan).
-Siperstein.
So, we chose twenty patients who were considered us diabetic or potentially diabetic (ten of them were males
and ten were females). Those patients were chosen to cover a wide scale as regards the type of diabetes, the duration
of diabetes, the type of treatment (including the food regimen), the age, and the body built.
Upon each of those patients we applied the double nrimple test and each of the above mentioned criteria of the oral
glucose tolerance test ,by the use of the giucocheck apparatus,then we tabulated the results of each and made
a comparison which was mainly between the WHO criterion (double sample test) on one side & the all other criteria on the other side.
Depending upon our results and the comparison we made, we concluded the following:
-By the WHO criterion there were no difference between the post challenge results of both the insulin-dependant and the non-insulin dependant diabetics,so this criterion wos not able to differentiate between these two groups of diabetes while the other classical criteria of the oral glucose tolerance test showed different results between
those two groups of patients,so they were able to differentiate between those two groups.
—The WHO criterion was not able to subclassify the non—insulin dependent diabetics to mildomoderate, and severe forms,and as a result it was not able to decide the proper treatment for the non—insulin dependent diabetic,while the other classical criteria of the oral glucose tolerance
test were able to do so.
—The WHO criterion produced a large category ealled the (impaired glucose tolerance :IGT) which replaced the mild, and moderate forms which were produced by the cltuinieol
criteria of the oral glucose tolerance te:;t.fiut this category of IGT has many disadvantages.
-The WHO criterion considered as normal 55% of the eases
but 25% of such cases showed an abnormal next glucose tolerance test.
-The WHO criterion showed a difference in the percentage of cases considered as diabetics between those expressed
in mmo1/1 and those expressed in mg% if the fasting blood glucose level of the population was with a mean of 5.6mniol/] with a standard deviation of 0.8 mmo1/1 .This is due to rounding of figures of mmo1/1 after being converted from mg% .
-The WHO criterion depends-to a great extent-on
the fasting blood glucose level in the diagnosis of the diabetic cases,and this has many disadvantages.
-The WHO criterion dependsobeside the fasting blood glucose levelvon the 2-h. level only which-although considered as the most dependable level in most of the eriterin of the classical oral glucose tolerance test—
yet the 1—h.lthe 1—h..& the 3—h. levels proved to be valuable.
—By a certain equation we could transmit the blood glucose level of the patient after a certain glucose load to that after an other load in the same hourothus we c()!Ald
apply all the criteria of the glucose tolerance test by doing the test once only. from all these criteria we have chosen the criterion of the British Diabetic Association as the most sensitive one(for epidemiological studies), and that of the National Diabetes Data Group as the most specific one (for individual case study), while the WHO criterion was not the best in neither sensitivity nor
specifity.
-However, the WHO criterion has some advantages over the other criteria including being less stressful, less expensive, and less time consuming.