4.6 Review

Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009088

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) programme [PB-PG-0711-25111]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10219, DRF-2010-03-72, CL-2014-23-001, PB-PG-0711-25111] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Clinicians predominantly use clinical features to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes yet there are no evidence-based clinical criteria to aid classification of patients. Misclassification of diabetes is widespread (7-15% of cases), resulting in patients receiving inappropriate treatment. We sought to identify which clinical criteria could be used to discriminate type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Design: Systematic review of all diagnostic accuracy studies published since 1979 using clinical criteria to predict insulin deficiency (measured by C-peptide). Data sources: 14 databases including: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process and EMBASE. The search strategy took the form of: (terms for diabetes) AND (terms for C-Peptide). Eligibility criteria: Diagnostic accuracy studies of any routinely available clinical predictors against a reference standard of insulin deficiency defined by cutoffs of C-peptide concentrations. No restrictions on race, age, language or country of origin. Results: 10 917 abstracts were screened, and 231 full texts reviewed. 11 studies met inclusion criteria, but varied by age, race, year and proportion of participants who were C-peptide negative. Age at diagnosis was the most discriminatory feature in 7/9 studies where it was assessed, with optimal cut-offs (>70% mean sensitivity and specificity) across studies being <30 years or <40 years. Use of/time to insulin treatment and body mass index (BMI) were also discriminatory. When combining features, BMI added little over age at diagnosis and/or time to insulin (<1% improvement in classification). Conclusions: Despite finding only 11 studies, and considerable heterogeneity between studies, age at diagnosis and time to insulin were consistently the most discriminatory criteria. BMI, despite being widely used in clinical practice, adds little to these two criteria. The criteria identified are similar to the Royal College of General Practitioners National Health Service (RCGP/NHS) Diabetes classification guidelines, which use age at diagnosis <35 years and time to insulin <6 m. Until further studies are carried out, these guidelines represent a suitable classification scheme.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据