Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27214034›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Evaluation of Non-Laboratory and Laboratory Prediction Models for Current and Future Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional and Retrospective Cohort Study.

Chang Ho Ahn, Ji Won Yoon, Seokyung Hahn, Min Kyong Moon, Kyong Soo Park, Young Min Cho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chang Ho AhnDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Won YoonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seokyung HahnMedical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Min Kyong MoonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kyong Soo ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young Min ChoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious diabetes risk scores composed of non-laboratory parameters have been developed, but only a few studies performed cross-validation of these scores and a comparison with laboratory parameters. We evaluated the performance of diabetes risk scores composed of non-laboratory parameters, including a recently published Korean risk score (KRS), and compared them with laboratory parameters.

methodsThe data of 26,675 individuals who visited the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center for a health screening program were reviewed for cross-sectional validation. The data of 3,029 individuals with a mean of 6.2 years of follow-up were reviewed for longitudinal validation. The KRS and 16 other risk scores were evaluated and compared with a laboratory prediction model developed by logistic regression analysis.

resultsFor the screening of undiagnosed diabetes, the KRS exhibited a sensitivity of 81%, a specificity of 58%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC) of 0.754. Other scores showed AROCs that ranged from 0.697 to 0.782. For the prediction of future diabetes, the KRS exhibited a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 54%, and an AROC of 0.696. Other scores had AROCs ranging from 0.630 to 0.721. The laboratory prediction model composed of fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels showed a significantly higher AROC (0.838, P < 0.001) than the KRS. The addition of the KRS to the laboratory prediction model increased the AROC (0.849, P = 0.016) without a significant improvement in the risk classification (net reclassification index: 4.6%, P = 0.264).

conclusionsThe non-laboratory risk scores, including KRS, are useful to estimate the risk of undiagnosed diabetes but are inferior to the laboratory parameters for predicting future diabetes.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultAgedArea Under CurveCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID27214034
PMCPMC4877115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.