Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27933187›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2016

Validation of the German Diabetes Risk Score among the general adult population: findings from the German Health Interview and Examination Surveys.

Rebecca Paprott, Kristin Mühlenbruch, Gert B M Mensink, Silke Thiele, Matthias B Schulze, Christa Scheidt-Nave, Christin Heidemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Rebecca PaprottDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany.
Kristin MühlenbruchGerman Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany; Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Gert B M MensinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring , Robert Koch Institute , Berlin , Germany.
Silke ThieleDepartment of Food Economics and Consumption Studies , Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel , Kiel , Germany.
Matthias B SchulzeGerman Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany; Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Christa Scheidt-NaveDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany.
Christin HeidemannDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS) among the general adult German population for prediction of incident type 2 diabetes and detection of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes.

methodsThe longitudinal sample for prediction of incident diagnosed type 2 diabetes included 3625 persons who participated both in the examination survey in 1997-1999 and the examination survey in 2008-2011. Incident diagnosed type 2 diabetes was defined as first-time physician diagnosis or antidiabetic medication during 5 years of follow-up excluding potential incident type 1 and gestational diabetes. The cross-sectional sample for detection of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes included 6048 participants without diagnosed diabetes of the examination survey in 2008-2011. Prevalent undiagnosed diabetes was defined as glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol). We assessed discrimination as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC (95% CI)) and calibration through calibration plots.

resultsIn longitudinal analyses, 82 subjects with incident diagnosed type 2 diabetes were identified after 5 years of follow-up. For prediction of incident diagnosed diabetes, the GDRS yielded an ROC-AUC of 0.87 (0.83 to 0.90). Calibration plots indicated excellent prediction for low diabetes risk and overestimation for intermediate and high diabetes risk. When considering the entire follow-up period of 11.9 years (ROC-AUC: 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86)) and including incident undiagnosed diabetes (ROC-AUC: 0.81 (0.78 to 0.84)), discrimination decreased somewhat. A previously simplified paper version of the GDRS yielded a similar predictive ability (ROC-AUC: 0.86 (0.82 to 0.89)). In cross-sectional analyses, 128 subjects with undiagnosed diabetes were identified. For detection of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, the ROC-AUC was 0.84 (0.81 to 0.86). Again, the simplified version yielded a similar result (ROC-AUC: 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86)).

conclusionsThe GDRS might be applied for public health monitoring of diabetes risk in the German adult population. Future research needs to evaluate whether the GDRS is useful to improve diabetes risk awareness and prevention among the general population.

Indexed as

A1CRisk AssessmentRisk Factor ModelingValidation

Identifiers

PMID27933187
PMCPMC5128853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.