ArticlePLoS medicine2016
Detecting Dysglycemia Using the 2015 United States Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria: A Cohort Analysis of Community Health Center Patients.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- PREVENT-DM Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Lifestyle Intervention and Metformin.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017 · on this mapTrial
- Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record-Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice.Diabetes care · 2025Article
- Article
- Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes in a National Network of Federally Qualified Health Centers: An Observational Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Observational
- The prevalence of hyperglycemia and its association with perioperative outcomes in gynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes: Clinical Performance and Implications for Health Equity.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Predicting attitudes towards screening for neurodegenerative diseases using OCT and artificial intelligence: Findings from a literature review.Journal of public health research · 2022Article
- Increasing Diabetes Screening in a Primary Care Setting.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2022Article
- Screening for Diabetes and Prediabetes.Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Patient Preparation for Outpatient Blood Work and the Impact of Surreptitious Fasting on Diagnoses of Diabetes and Prediabetes.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2020Article
- Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System.Diabetes care · 2020Article
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Evidence and Challenges for Translation and Population Impact of the Diabetes Prevention Program.Current diabetes reports · 2020Review
- Changes in Screening Practices for Prediabetes and Diabetes Since the Recommendation for Hemoglobin ADiabetes care · 2019Article
- Building Toward a Population-Based Approach to Diabetes Screening and Prevention for US Adults.Current diabetes reports · 2018Review
- Performance of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Diabetes Risk Assessment in Latinas: Effectiveness of a Brief Diabetes Risk Questionnaire for Detecting Prediabetes in a Community-Based Sample.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2018Article
- Preventing Diabetes in Primary Care: Providers' Perspectives About Diagnosing and Treating Prediabetes.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2018Article
- Performance of a Random Glucose Case-Finding Strategy to Detect Undiagnosed Diabetes.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended targeted screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) in adults who are aged 40 to 70 y old and overweight or obese. Given increasing prevalence of dysglycemia at younger ages and lower body weight, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities, we sought to determine whether the current screening criteria may fail to identify some high-risk population subgroups. METHODS AND
findingsWe investigated the performance of the 2015 USPSTF screening recommendation in detecting dysglycemia among US community health center patients. A retrospective analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data from 50,515 adult primary care patients was conducted. Longitudinal EHR data were collected in six health centers in the Midwest and Southwest. Patients with a first office visit between 2008 and 2010 were identified and followed for up to 3 y through 2013. We excluded patients who had dysglycemia at baseline and those with fewer than two office visits during the follow-up period. The exposure of interest was eligibility for screening according to the 2015 USPSTF criteria. The primary outcome was development of dysglycemia during follow-up, determined by: (1) laboratory results (fasting/2-h postload/random glucose ≥ 100/140/200 mg/dL [5.55/7.77/11.10 mmol/L] or hemoglobin A1C ≥ 5.7% [39 mmol/mol]); (2) diagnosis codes for prediabetes or type 2 diabetes; or (3) antidiabetic medication order. At baseline, 18,846 (37.3%) participants were aged ≥40 y, 33,537 (66.4%) were overweight or obese, and 39,061 (77.3%) were racial/ethnic minorities (34.6% Black, 33.9% Hispanic/Latino, and 8.7% Other). Overall, 29,946 (59.3%) patients had a glycemic test within 3 y of follow-up, and 8,478 of them developed dysglycemia. Only 12,679 (25.1%) patients were eligible for screening according to the 2015 USPSTF criteria, which demonstrated the following sensitivity and specificity (95% CI): 45.0% (43.9%-46.1%) and 71.9% (71.3%-72.5%), respectively. Racial/ethnic minorities were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening yet had higher odds of developing dysglycemia than whites (odds ratio [95% CI]: Blacks 1.24 [1.09-1.40]; Hispanics 1.46 [1.30-1.64]; and Other 1.33 [1.16-1.54]). In addition, the screening criteria had lower sensitivity in all racial/ethnic minority groups compared to whites. Limitations of this study include the ascertainment of dysglycemia only among patients with available test results and findings that may not be generalizable at the population level.
conclusionsTargeted diabetes screening based on new USPSTF criteria may detect approximately half of adult community health center patients with undiagnosed dysglycemia and proportionately fewer racial/ethnic minorities than whites. Future research is needed to estimate the performance of these screening criteria in population-based samples.
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.