4.2 Article

Diabetes screening in South Korea: a new esti- mate of the number needed to screen to detect diabetes

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

KOREAN ASSOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2022.283

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus; Early diagnosis; Screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to determine the age threshold for diabetes screening in Korean adults. The study found that universal screening for adults aged >= 35 and selective screening for adults aged 20 to 34, considering diabetes risk factors, may be appropriate for detecting prediabetes and diabetes in South Korea.
Background/Aims: The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) guidelines recommend adults aged >= 40 years and adults aged >= 30 years with diabetes risk factors for diabetes screening. This study aimed to determine the age threshold for diabetes screening in Korean adults. Methods: This study was based on the analyses of Korean adults aged >= 20 years using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) and the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC). To evaluate screening effectiveness, we calculated the number needed to screen (NNS). Results: NNS to detect diabetes decreased from 63 to 34 in the KNHANES and from 71 to 42 in the NHIS-NSC between the ages of 30-34 and 35-39. When universal screening was applied to adults aged >= 35, the NNS was similar to that of adults aged >= 40. Compared to the KDA guidelines, the rate of missed screening positive in adults aged >= 20 decreased from 4.0% to 0.2% when the newly suggested screening criteria were applied. Conclusions: Universal screening for adults aged >= 35 and selective screening for adults aged 20 to 34, considering diabetes risk factors, may be appropriate for detecting prediabetes and diabetes in South Korea.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available