ArticleBMJ open2018
Incremental predictive value of screening for anxiety and depression beyond current type 2 diabetes risk models: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validating the Emotional Well-Being Questionnaire in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Confirmatory Factor Analysis.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Article
- The Prevalence and Determinants of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Type II Diabetes Mellitus in Mogadishu, Somalia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to determine whether screening for anxiety and depression, an emerging risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D), adds clinically meaningful information beyond current T2D risk assessment tools.
designProspective cohort. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingThe 45 and Up Study is a large-scale prospective cohort of men and women aged 45 years and over, randomly sampled from the general population of New South Wales, Australia. 51 588 participants without self-reported diabetes at baseline (2006-2009) were followed up for approximately 3 years (2010).
methodsT2D status was determined by self-reported doctor who diagnosed diabetes after the age of 30 years, and/or current use of metformin. Current symptoms of anxiety and/or depression were measured by the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). We determined the optimal cut-off point for K10 for predicting T2D using Tjur's R2 and tested risk models with and without the K10 using logistic regression. We assessed performance measures for the incremental value of the K10 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AROC), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and net benefit (NB) decision analytics with sensitivity analyses.
resultsT2D developed in 1076 individuals (52.4% men). A K10 score of ≥19 (prevalence 8.97%), adjusted for age and gender, was optimal for predicting incident T2D (sensitivity 77%, specificity 53% and positive predictive value 3%; OR 1.70 (95% CI 1.41 to 2.03, P<0.001). K10 score predicted incident T2D independent of current risk models, but did not improve corresponding AROC, NRI and NB statistics. Sensitivity analyses showed that this was partially explained by the baseline model and the small effect size of the K10 that was similar compared with other risk factors.
conclusionsAnxiety and depressing screening with the K10 adds no meaningful incremental value in addition to current T2D risk assessments. The clinical importance of anxiety and depression screening in preventing T2D requires ongoing consideration.
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.