just a quick one

[staceyc]

`had my hba1 result and its 51 mmol (23.0 -43.0)what is this in the old numbler style please

 

[lizabetic]

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Professi...-and-resources/Tools/Changes-to-HbA1c-values/

I used this, it says 7% 🙂

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

DUK's converter seems to be rounding up a little.

The conversion they suggest:

([new number]/10.929)+2.15 = HbA1c in %
or
([old number]-2.15)/10.929 = HbA1c in mmol/mol

comes out as 6.8%

 

[trophywench]

I concur with 6.8 because mine is 50 and so is just under yours.

 

[robofski]

DUK's converter seems to be rounding up a little.

The conversion they suggest:

([new number]/10.929)+2.15 = HbA1c in %
or
([old number]-2.15)/10.929 = HbA1c in mmol/mol

comes out as 6.8%

Should that not be ([old number]-2.15)*10.929 🙂

 

[robofski]

The tool at this page

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/en/Guide.../Glycated_haemoglobin_HbA1c_and_fructosamine/

which is the link at the top of the forum (HbA1c) seems not to be rounding up, it came out at 6.8!

 

[staceyc]

thanks for replys why cant they keep the old way lol

 

[jalapino]

thanks for replys why cant they keep the old way lol

I agree with this...and my DB nurse does to....it's simple.....if something is not broke...why fix it???

 

[Northerner]

I've never been given the new format numbers, only the percentages, so when someone posts their up here I always have to go and calculate what they mean as a %-age! 🙂

 

[trophywench]

Well I know I have to convert myself for it to be meaningful - however instead of having eg 6.8, which could be anywhere between 6.75 and 6.85, you now have a range of 3 whole numbers between those two, so I suppose I (begrudgingly LOL) have to agree you can be more precise.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Should that not be ([old number]-2.15)*10.929 🙂

Thanks robofski - yup typing error!

The switch is down to International Standardisation I think (makes research/results easier to compare and contrast and helps HCPs working across different countries.