Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of equivalence and determination of diagnostic utility of min-mod and clamp methods for insulin resistance in diabetes free subjects

A meta-analysis

  • Published:
Endocrine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The gold standard for quantifying insulin sensitivity (IS) is the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (Clamp) with a cut-off point of 5 × 10−2 (dL/min)/(µU/mL) or less to indicate insulin resistance. Bergman’s minimal model (Min-Mod) is also being used to estimate IS, but there are doubts as to its equivalence with Clamp. The objective of the present study is to determine if Clamp and the tolbutamide and insulin techniques of Min-Mod are equivalent. Meta-analysis based on a bibliographic search from 1970 until the present was made for the MeSH terms: insulin resistance, hyperglycemic-clamp, euglycemic-clamp, Min-Mod, minimal model approach. Concordance was determined with both simple and intraclass correlation and Bland and Altman’s concordance limits using R. Three of the 109 articles found were included. The concordance limits indicate that Clamp and Min-Mod are not equivalent, which could result in diagnostic errors if the accepted cut-off point is used for both methods. Given this lack of equivalence, a ROC analysis was performed and new diagnostic cut-off points of 2.4 and 4.6 × 10−2 (dL/min)/(µU/mL) for insulin and tolbutamide techniques of Min-Mod, respectively, are proposed, with adequate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. These values should be prospectively validated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moller, D. E. and Flier, J. S. (1991). N. Engl. J. Med. 325, 938–948.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. De Fronzo, R. A., Tobin, J. D., and Andres, R. (1979). Am. J. Physiol. 237, E214-E223.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tritos, N. A. and Mantzoros, C. S. (1998). J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 83, 3025–3030.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pacini, G. and Bergman, R. (1986). Comp. Prog. Biomed. 23, 113–122.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergman, R. (1989). Diabetes 38, 1512–1527.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergman, R. N., Prager, R., Volund, A., and Olefsky, J. (1987). J. Clin. Invest. 79, 790–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Saad, M. F., et al. (1997). Diabetes 46, 1167–1171.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Saad, M. F., et al. (1994). Diabetes 43, 1114–1121.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alpízar-Salazar, M. and Escalante-Pulido, J. M. (1998). Rev. Endocr. Nutr. 6, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ta-chen, N., Ader, M., and Bergman R. N. (1997). Diabetes 46, 1813–1821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleinbaum, D. G. (ed.). (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Duxbury Press: Pacific Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Richardson, D. K., Schwartz, J. S., Wienbaum, P. J., and Gabbe, S. G. (1985). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 152, 613–618.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G. H., and Tugwell, P. (1991). In: Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed, Little, Brown and Company: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shrout, P. E. and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Psychol. Bull. 86, 420–428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Escalante Pulido, J. M., Alpízar Salazar, M., and González Bárcena, D. (1994). Rev. Endocr. Nutr. 2, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Avogaro, A., Vicini P., Valerio, A., Caumo, A., and Cobelli, C. (1996). Am. J. Physiol. 270 (Endocrinol. Metab. 33), E532-E540.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Prigeon, R. L., Kahn, S. E., and Porter, D. Jr. (1994). Am. J. Physiol. 266 (Endocrinol. Metab 29), E279-E286.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Regittnig, W., Trajanoski, Z., Leis, H. J., Ellmerer M., et al. (1999). Diabetes 48, 1070–1081.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ta-chen, N., Ader, M., and Bergman, R. N. (1997). Diabetes 46, 1813–1821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Altman, D. G. (2000). In: Statistics with confidence. 2nd ed., British Medical Journal Books: Bristol, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mari, A. (1997). Am. J. Physiol. 272 (Endocrinol. Metab. 35), E925-E934.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ihaka, R. and Gentleman, R. (1991). J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5, 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleiss, J. L. (1975). Biometrics 31, 655–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bartko, J. J. (1966). Psychol. Rep. 19, 3–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kramer, M. and Feinstein A. R. (1981). Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 29, 111–123.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin, L. I. (1989). Biometrics 45, 255–268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nickerson, C. (1997). Biometrics 53, 1503–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bland, J. M. and Altman, D. G. (1986). Lancet 1, 307–310.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bland, M. (ed.). (1995). An introduction to medical statistics. 2nd. ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Gordillo-Moscoso.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this paper was presented during the oral session of the 3rd International Workshop on Insulin Resistance held February 17–19, 2003, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordillo-Moscoso, A., Valadéz-Castillo, J.F., Mandeville, P.B. et al. Comparison of equivalence and determination of diagnostic utility of min-mod and clamp methods for insulin resistance in diabetes free subjects. Endocr 25, 259–263 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1385/ENDO:25:3:259

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/ENDO:25:3:259

Key Words

Navigation