Article

Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk.

Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and FOJP Service Corporation, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 12/2009; 151(11):775-83. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed.
To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model).
Cross-sectional data.
NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation.
U.S. adults aged 20 years or older.
A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures.
Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35% (40%) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79% (72%), specificity of 67% (62%), positive predictive value of 10% (10%), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44% to 100%, specificity of 10% to 73%, positive predictive value of 5% to 8%, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98.
Data during pregnancy were not available.
This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings.
Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Alvin I Mushlin, Feb 28, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
227 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The global prevalence of diabetes is rapidly increasing. Studies support the necessity of screening and interventions for prediabetes, which could result in serious complications and diabetes. This study aimed at developing an intelligence-based screening model for prediabetes. Data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) were used, excluding subjects with diabetes. The KNHANES 2010 data (n = 4685) were used for training and internal validation, while data from KNHANES 2011 (n = 4566) were used for external validation. We developed two models to screen for prediabetes using an artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector machine (SVM) and performed a systematic evaluation of the models using internal and external validation. We compared the performance of our models with that of a screening score model based on logistic regression analysis for prediabetes that had been developed previously. The SVM model showed the areas under the curve of 0.731 in the external datasets, which is higher than those of the ANN model (0.729) and the screening score model (0.712), respectively. The prescreening methods developed in this study performed better than the screening score model that had been developed previously and may be more effective method for prediabetes screening.
    Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 07/2014; 2014:618976. DOI:10.1155/2014/618976 · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate the performance of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in detecting undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes among U.S. adults by gender and race. Methods This cross-sectional analysis included participants (aged ≥20 years) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2010. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the optimal cutoff points for identifying undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes were calculated for FINDRISC by gender and race/ethnicity. Results Among the 20,633 adults (≥20 years), 49.8% were women and 53.0% were non-Hispanic White. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes was 4.1% and 35.6%, respectively. FINDRISC was positively associated with the prevalence of diabetes (OR = 1.48 for 1 unit increase, p<0.001) and prediabetes (OR = 1.15 for 1 unit increase, p<0.001). The area under ROC for detecting undiagnosed diabetes was 0.75 for total population, 0.74 for men and 0.78 for women (p = 0.04); 0.76 for White, 0.76 for Black and 0.72 for Hispanics (p = 0.03 for White vs. Hispanics). The area under ROC for detecting prediabetes was 0.67 for total population, 0.66 for men and 0.70 for women (p<0.001); 0.68 for White, 0.67 for Black and 0.65 for Hispanics (p<0.001 for White vs. Hispanics). The optimal cutoff point was 10 (sensitivity = 0.75) for men and 12 (sensitivity = 0.72) for women for detecting undiagnosed diabetes; 9 (sensitivity = 0.61) for men and 10 (sensitivity = 0.69) for women for detecting prediabetes. Conclusions FINDRISC is a simple and non-invasive screening tool to identify individuals at high risk for diabetes in the U.S. adults.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e97865. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0097865 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clustering of abnormal metabolic traits, the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS), has been associated with an increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Several algorithms including the MetS and other risk factors exist for adults to predict the risk of CVD. We discuss the use of MetS scores and algorithms in an attempt to predict later cardiometabolic risk in children and adolescents and offer suggestions for developing clinically useful algorithms in this population. There is little consensus in how to define the MetS or to predict future CVD risk using the MetS and other risk factors in children and adolescents. The MetS scores and prediction algorithms we identified had usually not been tested against a clinical outcome, such as CVD, and they had not been validated in other populations. This makes comparisons of algorithms impossible. We suggest a simple two-step approach for predicting the risk of adult cardiometabolic disease in overweight children. It may have advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness since it uses simple measurements in the first step and more complex, costly measurements in the second step. It also takes advantage of the continuous distributions of the metabolic features. We suggest piloting and validating any new algorithms.
    Journal of obesity 01/2013; 2013:684782. DOI:10.1155/2013/684782