Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19297312›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Predicting risk of type 2 diabetes in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QDScore.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland, John Robson, Aziz Sheikh, Peter Brindle

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05609266 (Validation of Non-invasive Risk Models for Prediction of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in a Swedish Population), which is not on this map. Cited by 165 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
18.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05609266 completednot on this map

Validation of Non-invasive Risk Models for Prediction of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in a Swedish Population

TypeobservationalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan1990 to 2020Enrolled115,642ConditionsType2diabetes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

165 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 377 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Trial

105 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julia Hippisley-CoxDivision of Primary Care, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD. Julia.hippisley-cox@nottingham.ac.uk
Carol Coupland
John Robson
Aziz Sheikh
Peter Brindle
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate a new diabetes risk algorithm (the QDScore) for estimating 10 year risk of acquiring diagnosed type 2 diabetes over a 10 year time period in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population.

designProspective open cohort study using routinely collected data from 355 general practices in England and Wales to develop the score and from 176 separate practices to validate the score.

participants2 540 753 patients aged 25-79 in the derivation cohort, who contributed 16 436 135 person years of observation and of whom 78 081 had an incident diagnosis of type 2 diabetes; 1 232 832 patients (7 643 037 person years) in the validation cohort, with 37 535 incident cases of type 2 diabetes. OUTCOME MEASURES: A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate effects of risk factors in the derivation cohort and to derive a risk equation in men and women. The predictive variables examined and included in the final model were self assigned ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, family history of diabetes, Townsend deprivation score, treated hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and current use of corticosteroids; the outcome of interest was incident diabetes recorded in general practice records. Measures of calibration and discrimination were calculated in the validation cohort.

resultsA fourfold to fivefold variation in risk of type 2 diabetes existed between different ethnic groups. Compared with the white reference group, the adjusted hazard ratio was 4.07 (95% confidence interval 3.24 to 5.11) for Bangladeshi women, 4.53 (3.67 to 5.59) for Bangladeshi men, 2.15 (1.84 to 2.52) for Pakistani women, and 2.54 (2.20 to 2.93) for Pakistani men. Pakistani and Bangladeshi men had significantly higher hazard ratios than Indian men. Black African men and Chinese women had an increased risk compared with the corresponding white reference group. In the validation dataset, the model explained 51.53% (95% confidence interval 50.90 to 52.16) of the variation in women and 48.16% (47.52 to 48.80) of that in men. The risk score showed good discrimination, with a D statistic of 2.11 (95% confidence interval 2.08 to 2.14) in women and 1.97 (1.95 to 2.00) in men. The model was well calibrated.

conclusionsThe QDScore is the first risk prediction algorithm to estimate the 10 year risk of diabetes on the basis of a prospective cohort study and including both social deprivation and ethnicity. The algorithm does not need laboratory tests and can be used in clinical settings and also by the public through a simple web calculator (www.qdscore.org).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAfricaAgedAge DistributionAsiaDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceProspective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID19297312
PMCPMC2659857
OpenAlexW2158810997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.