SynthesisPloS one2015
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Response Rates and Diagnostic Yield of Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Those at High Risk of Diabetes.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Two-stage, school and community-based population screening successfully identifies individuals and families at high-risk for type 2 diabetes: the Feel4Diabetes-study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2020Trial
- Differences in screen-detected type 2 diabetes in two targeted community-based screening campaigns in Denmark.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
- Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of at-home self-sampling screening for type 2 diabetes: a pilot screening study in Denmark.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
- Exploring targeted preventive health check interventions - a realist synthesis.BMC public health · 2023Review
- Early detection of type 2 diabetes in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in Stockholm - comparing reach of community and facility-based screening.Global health action · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation and refinement of the PRESTARt tool for identifying 12-14 year olds at high lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to a clinicians assessment of risk: a cross-sectional study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2019Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM in Peruvian population.Primary care diabetes · 2018Article
- Is chronic low back pain a risk factor for diabetes? The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and individuals at risk of diabetes has been advocated, yet information on the response rate and diagnostic yield of different screening strategies are lacking.
methodsStudies (from 1998 to March/2015) were identified through Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library and included if they used oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and WHO-1998 diagnostic criteria for screening in a community setting. Studies were one-step strategy if participants were invited directly for OGTT and two, three/four step if participants were screened at one or more levels prior to invitation to OGTT. The response rate and diagnostic yield were pooled using Bayesian random-effect meta-analyses.
findings47 studies (422754 participants); 29 one-step, 11 two-step and seven three/four-step were identified. Pooled response rate (95% Credible Interval) for invitation to OGTT was 65.5% (53.7, 75.6), 63.1% (44.0, 76.8), and 85.4% (76.4, 93.3) in one, two and three/four-step studies respectively. T2DM yield was 6.6% (5.3, 7.8), 13.1% (4.3, 30.9) and 27.9% (8.6, 66.3) for one, two and three/four-step strategies respectively. The number needed to invite to the OGTT to detect one case of T2DM was 15, 7.6 and 3.6 in one, two, and three/four-step strategies. In two step strategies, there was no difference between the response or yield rates whether the first step was blood test or risk-score. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity in rates across study populations but this was not explained by the method of invitation, study location (rural versus urban) and developmental index of the country in which the study was performed.
conclusionsIrrespective of the invitation method, developmental status of the countries and or rural/urban location, using a multi-step strategy increases the initial response rate to the invitation to screening for diabetes and reduces the number needed to have the final diagnostic test (OGTT in this study) for a definite diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.