ArticlePloS one2016
Performance of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and a Simplified Finnish Diabetes Risk Score in a Community-Based, Cross-Sectional Programme for Screening of Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Dysglycaemia in Madrid, Spain: The SPREDIA-2 Study.
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 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Can Periodical Examinations of Employees Be Useful in Detection of Glycaemia Impairment and Improving Patients' Adherence to Medical Recommendations?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Trial
- Taking diabetes risk screening to the community: Feasibility and acceptability of the FINDRISC tool in vulnerable populations in Argentina.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Validation of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in a Central-European Population for the Prediction of Cumulative Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Over 8-Years-Follow-Up of the Budakalász Health Examination Survey (BHES).Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2025Article
- [Comment on the article: "Diagnostic performance of the FINDRISC questionnaire to identify insulin resistance in adults"].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025Article
- Validation of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and development of a country-specific diabetes prediction model for Turkey.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- FINDRISC modified for Cuba as a tool for the detection of prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in cuban population.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica · 2025Article
- Article
- Adaptation of finnish diabetes risk score for screening undiagnosed diabetes and hyperglycemia in Chinese adults.PloS one · 2025Article
- Predicting long-term sickness absence with employee questionnaires and administrative records: a prospective cohort study of hospital employees.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Prevalence of increased risk of type 2 diabetes in general practice: a cross-sectional study in Norway.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Predicting work disability among people with chronic conditions: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- External Validation of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool Prediction Models to Identify People with Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-sectional Study in Iran.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Article
- A multigenerational study on phenotypic consequences of the most common causal variant of HNF1A-MODY.Diabetologia · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score Model With the Metabolic Syndrome in a Shanghai Population.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a new diabetes index for the risk classification of present and new-onset diabetes: multicohort study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Early detection of type 2 diabetes in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in Stockholm - comparing reach of community and facility-based screening.Global health action · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the performance of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and a simplified FINDRISC score (MADRISC) in screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (UT2DM) and dysglycaemia.
methodsA population-based, cross-sectional, descriptive study was carried out with participants with UT2DM, ranged between 45-74 years and lived in two districts in the north of metropolitan Madrid (Spain). The FINDRISC and MADRISC scores were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve method (ROC-AUC). Four different gold standards were used for UT2DM and any dysglycaemia, as follows: fasting plasma glucose (FPG), oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c, and OGTT or HbA1c. Dysglycaemia and UT2DM were defined according to American Diabetes Association criteria.
resultsThe study population comprised 1,426 participants (832 females and 594 males) with a mean age of 62 years (SD = 6.1). When HbA1c or OGTT criteria were used, the prevalence of UT2DM was 7.4% (10.4% in men and 5.2% in women; p<0.01) and the FINDRISC ROC-AUC for UT2DM was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74). The optimal cut-off point was ≥13 (sensitivity = 63.8%, specificity = 65.1%). The ROC-AUC of MADRISC was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) with ≥13 as the optimal cut-off point (sensitivity = 84.8%, specificity = 54.6%). FINDRISC score ≥12 for detecting any dysglycaemia offered the best cut-off point when HbA1c alone or OGTT and HbA1c were the criteria used.
conclusionsFINDRISC proved to be a useful instrument in screening for dysglycaemia and UT2DM. In the screening of UT2DM, the simplified MADRISC performed as well as FINDRISC.
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.