SynthesisPloS one2017
EZSCAN for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Detection of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Focus on Small Nerve Fibres.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- DS21, a new noninvasive technology, is effective and safe for screening for prediabetes and diabetes in Chinese population.Biomedical engineering online · 2020Article
- Role of the physical fitness test in risk prediction of diabetes among municipal in-service personnel in Guangxi.Medicine · 2019Observational
- A Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Interval for the Prevalence of Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Hamadan, West of Iran.Journal of research in health sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe EZSCAN is a non-invasive device that, by evaluating sweat gland function, may detect subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies assessing the performance of the EZSCAN for detecting cases of undiagnosed T2DM. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe searched for observational studies including diagnostic accuracy and performance results assessing EZSCAN for detecting cases of undiagnosed T2DM. OVID (Medline, Embase, Global Health), CINAHL and SCOPUS databases, plus secondary resources, were searched until March 29, 2017. The following keywords were utilized for the systematic searching: type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia, EZSCAN, SUDOSCAN, and sudomotor function. Two investigators extracted the information for meta-analysis and assessed the quality of the data using the Revised Version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. Pooled estimates were obtained by fitting the logistic-normal random-effects model without covariates but random intercepts and using the Freeman-Tukey Arcsine Transformation to stabilize variances. Heterogeneity was also assessed using the I2 measure. Four studies (n = 7,720) were included, three of them used oral glucose tolerance test as the gold standard. Using Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model, summary sensitivity was 72.0% (95%CI: 60.0%- 83.0%), whereas specificity was 56.0% (95%CI: 38.0%- 74.0%). Studies were very heterogeneous (I2 for sensitivity: 79.2% and for specificity: 99.1%) regarding the inclusion criteria and bias was present mainly due to participants selection.
conclusionsThe sensitivity of EZSCAN for detecting cases of undiagnosed T2DM seems to be acceptable, but evidence of high heterogeneity and participant selection bias was detected in most of the studies included. More studies are needed to evaluate the performance of the EZSCAN for undiagnosed T2DM screening, especially at the population level.
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.