ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2018
Performance of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Health Improvements and Economic Performance Among Individuals With Diabetes.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Current gaps in management and timely referral of cardiorenal complications among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Middle East and African countries: Expert recommendations.Journal of diabetes · 2022Review
- Optimizing diabetes screening frequencies for at-risk groups.Health care management science · 2022Article
- Increasing Diabetes Screening in a Primary Care Setting.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2022Article
- Screening for Diabetes and Prediabetes.Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Health Insurance Is Associated with Decreased Odds for Undiagnosed Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in American Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Provision of Lifestyle Counseling for Diabetes or Prediabetes With Comorbid Obesity: Analysis of Office-Based Physician Visits Made by Patients 20 Years of Age or Older.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2019Article
- Building Toward a Population-Based Approach to Diabetes Screening and Prevention for US Adults.Current diabetes reports · 2018Review
- Factors Associated with Clinician Adherence to USPSTF Diabetes Screening Recommendations.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (collectively called dysglycemia) among adults aged 40-70 years with overweight or obesity. The recommendation suggests that clinicians consider screening earlier in people who have other diabetes risk factors.
objectiveTo compare the performance of limited and expanded screening criteria recommended by the USPSTF for detecting dysglycemia among US adults.
designCross-sectional analysis of survey and laboratory data collected from nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population.
participantsA total of 3643 adults without diagnosed diabetes who underwent measurement of hemoglobin A1c (A1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG). MAIN MEASURES: Screening eligibility according to the limited criteria was based on age 40 to 70 years old and overweight/obesity. Screening eligibility according to the expanded criteria was determined by meeting the limited criteria or having ≥ 1 of the following risk factors: family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes or polycystic ovarian syndrome, and non-white race/ethnicity. Dysglycemia was defined by A1c ≥ 5.7%, FPG ≥ 100 mg/dL, and/or 2-h PG ≥ 140 mg/dL. KEY
resultsAmong the US adult population without diagnosed diabetes, 49.7% had dysglycemia. Screening based on the limited criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 47.3% (95% CI, 44.7-50.0%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI, 67.3-75.2%). The expanded criteria yielded higher sensitivity [76.8% (95% CI, 73.5-79.8%)] and lower specificity [33.8% (95% CI, 30.1-37.7%)]. Point estimates for the sensitivity of the limited criteria were lower in all minority groups and significantly different for Asians compared to non-Hispanic whites [29.9% (95% CI, 23.4-37.2%) vs. 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9-53.7%); P < .001].
conclusionsDiabetes screening that follows the limited USPSTF criteria will identify approximately half of US adults with dysglycemia. Screening other high-risk subgroups defined in the USPSTF recommendation would improve detection of dysglycemia and may reduce associated racial/ethnic disparities.
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.