ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Comparison of surveillance-based metrics for the assessment and monitoring of disease detection: simulation study about type 2 diabetes.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving health outcomes of people with diabetes: target setting for the WHO Global Diabetes Compact.Lancet (London, England) · 2023Article
- Analysing detection of chronic diseases with prolonged sub-clinical periods: modelling and application to hypertension in the U.S.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Trends in type 2 diabetes detection among adults in the USA, 1999-2014.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening and detection of cases are a common public health priority for treatable chronic conditions with long subclinical periods. However, the validity of commonly-used metrics from surveillance systems for rates of detection (or case-finding) have not been evaluated.
methodsUsing data from a Danish diabetes register and a recently developed illness-death model of chronic diseases with subclinical conditions, we simulate two scenarios of different performance of case-finding. We report different epidemiological indices to assess case-finding in both scenarios and compare the validity of the results.
resultsThe commonly used ratio of detected cases over total cases may lead to misleading conclusions. Instead, the ratio of undetected cases over persons without a diagnosis is a more valid index to distinguish the quality of case-finding. However, incidence-based measures are preferable to prevalence based indicators.
conclusionPrevalence-based indices for assessing case-finding should be interpreted with caution. If possible, incidence-based indices should be preferred.
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.