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.


Available from: Alvin I Mushlin, Feb 28, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is accepted among the algorithms used for making diagnosis for diabetes and prediabetes since it does not require subjects to be prepared for giving a blood sample. The aim of this study is to assess the performance of HbA1c against fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in detecting prediabetes and diabetes. A total of 315 subjects were included in this study. The success of HbA1c in distinguishing the three diagnostic classes was examined by three-way receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The best cut-off points for HbA1c were found for discriminating the three disease status. The performance of HbA1c, measured by the volume under the ROC surface (VUS), is found to be statistically significant (VUS = 0.535, P < 0.001). The best cut-off points for discriminating between normal and prediabetes groups and between prediabetes and diabetes groups are c1 = 5.2% and c2 = 6.4% respectively. The performance of HbA1c in distinguishing between the prediabetes and diabetes groups was higher than its ability in distinguishing between healthy and prediabetes groups. This study provides enough information to understand what proportion of diabetes patients were skipped with the HbA1c especially when the test result is healthy or prediabetes. If a subject was diagnosed as healthy or prediabetes by HbA1c, it would be beneficial to verify the status of that subject by the gold standard test (OGTT and FPG).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context: Although random blood glucose (RBG) values are common in clinical practice, the role of elevated RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes is not well described. Objective: To examine non-diagnostic, RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes Design: Cross-sectional study of NHANES participants (2005-2010) Participants: 13,792 non-fasting NHANES participants without diagnosed diabetes. Primary Outcome: Glycemic status (normal glycemia, undiagnosed prediabetes, or undiagnosed diabetes) using hemoglobin HbA1C as the criterion standard. Analysis: Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between diabetes risk factors and RBG values according to glycemic status. Associations between current US screening strategies and a hypothetical RBG screening strategy with undiagnosed diabetes were examined. Results: In unadjusted analyses, a single RBG≥100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than any single risk factor [Odds Ratio (95% CI) 31.2 (21.3 - 45.5)] and remained strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes [20.4 (14.0 - 29.6)] after adjustment for traditional diabetes risk factors. Using RBG<100 mg/dL as a reference, the adjusted odds of undiagnosed diabetes increased significantly as RBG increased: RBG 100-119 mg/dL [7.1 (4.4-11.4)], RBG 120-139 mg/dL [30.3 (20.0-46.0)], RBG≥140 mg/dL [256 (150.0-436.9)]. As a hypothetical screening strategy, an elevated RBG was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than current USPSTF guidelines (hypertension alone; p<0.0001) and similar to ADA guidelines (p=0.12). Conclusions: A single RBG ≥ 100 mg/dL is more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than traditional risk factors. Abnormal RBG values are a risk factor for diabetes and should be considered in screening guidelines.
    Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp Metabolism 02/2015; 100(4):jc20144116. DOI:10.1210/jc.2014-4116 · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Missing values are common in health research and omitting participants with missing data often leads to loss of statistical power, biased estimates and, consequently, inaccurate inferences. We critically reviewed the challenges posed by missing data in medical research and approaches to address them. To achieve this more efficiently, these issues were analyzed and illustrated through a systematic review on the reporting of missing data and imputation methods (prediction of missing values through relationships within and between variables) undertaken in risk prediction studies of undiagnosed diabetes. Prevalent diabetes risk models were selected based on a recent comprehensive systematic review, supplemented by an updated search of English-language studies published between 1997 and 2014. Reporting of missing data has been limited in studies of prevalent diabetes prediction. Of the 48 articles identified, 62.5% (n = 30) did not report any information on missing data or handling techniques. In 21 (43.8%) studies, researchers opted out of imputation, completing case-wise deletion of participants missing any predictor values. Although imputation methods are encouraged to handle missing data and ensure the accuracy of inferences, this has seldom been the case in studies of diabetes risk prediction. Hence, we elaborated on the various types and patterns of missing data, the limitations of case-wise deletion and state-of the-art methods of imputations and their challenges. This review highlights the inexperience or disregard of investigators of the effect of missing data in risk prediction research. Formal guidelines may enhance the reporting and appropriate handling of missing data in scientific journals.
    12/2015; 6(1). DOI:10.1186/s13167-015-0028-0