4.7 Article

The performance of a risk score in predicting undiagnosed hyperglycemia

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 984-988

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.6.984

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - Type 2 diabetes is a serious disease that is commonly undetected and for which screening is sometimes advocated. A number of risk factors are associated with prevalent undiagnosed diabetes. The use of routinely available information on these factors has been proposed as a simple and effective way of identifying individuals at high risk for having the disease. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the Cambridge risk score in a large and representative population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A risk score derived from data in a previous study was tested for its ability to detect prevalent undiagnosed hyperglycemia as measured by a GHb greater than or equal to 6.0, 6.5, or 7% in 6,567 subjects aged 39-78 years in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk cohort. RESULTS - For a specificity of 78%, the risk score predicted a GHb of greater than or equal to7.0% in subjects aged 39-78 years, with a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI 40-62). The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for GHb greater than or equal to6.0, 6.5, and 7% were 65.7% (63.8-67.6), 71.2% (68.4-75.2), and 74.2% (69.5-79.0), respectively. The area under the ROC curve was not significantly reduced if data on family and smoking history were unavailable for any of the cut-offs for GHb. CONCLUSIONS - The risk score performed as well as other previously reported models in all age groups. We concluded that a simple risk score using data routinely available in primary care can identify people with an elevated GHb with reasonable sensitivity and specificity, and it could therefore form part of a strategy for early detection Of type 2 diabetes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available