Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Thresholds for hypoglycaemic screening—a cause for concern?
  1. Amanda L Ogilvy-Stuart1,
  2. Jane E Harding2,
  3. Kathryn Beardsall1,3
  1. 1 Neonatal Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2 Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  3. 3 Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kathryn Beardsall, Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; kb274{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The new Framework for Practice highlights the limited evidence for our current clinical practice.1 It is helpful in emphasising the importance of accurate measurement of glucose concentrations, listening to the concerns of parents and acknowledging that untreated hypoglycaemia can have devastating longterm consequences. However we have the following concerns:

Screening thresholds

The Framework recommends lowering a commonly accepted screening threshold in infants considered to be at risk of hypoglycaemia, to a level that at any other time of life would be considered harmful. It fails to acknowledge the differences between screening and diagnostic thresholds; something neonatologists are very familiar with in the management of babies with jaundice. Phototherapy is provided to many babies with bilirubin levels well below a harmful level to prevent a harmful level being reached. Screening interventions are intended to prevent harmful events. Such thresholds will inevitably mean many individuals are treated ‘unnecessarily’ to avoid the risk of significant harm. In 2000 Cornblath et al published guidance on ‘operational thresholds’ in keeping with the current BAPM framework.2 However, and possibly reflecting concerns …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors jointly discussed and contributed to the manuscript.

  • Funding Dr K Beardsall receives funding from NIHR EME.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. There are 2 companion papers to go with this article and they have now been added. To access them click on the links in the gutter of the first page.

Linked Articles