Trial reportPloS one2019
Development and multi-cohort validation of a clinical score for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- The association between food group-based inflammatory score and cardiometabolic disorders in Ganzhou City of China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the gender difference in type 2 diabetes incidence in a Swiss cohort using latent class analysis: an intersectional approach.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMany countries lack resources to identify patients at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes mellitus (diabetes). We aimed to develop and validate a diabetes risk score based on easily accessible clinical data.
methodsProspective study including 5277 participants (55.0% women, 51.8±10.5 years) free of diabetes at baseline. Comparison with two other published diabetes risk scores (Balkau and Kahn clinical, respectively 5 and 8 variables) and validation on three cohorts (Europe, Iran and Mexico) was performed.
resultsAfter a mean follow-up of 10.9 years, 405 participants (7.7%) developed diabetes. Our score was based on age, gender, waist circumference, diabetes family history, hypertension and physical activity. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.772 for our score, vs. 0.748 (p<0.001) and 0.774 (p = 0.668) for the other two. Using a 13-point threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (95% CI) of our score were 60.5 (55.5-65.3), 77.1 (75.8-78.2), 18.0 (16.0-20.1) and 95.9 (95.2-96.5) percent, respectively. Our score performed equally well or better than the other two in the Iranian [AUC 0.542 vs. 0.564 (p = 0.476) and 0.513 (p = 0.300)] and Mexican [AUC 0.791 vs. 0.672 (p<0.001) and 0.778 (p = 0.575)] cohorts. In the European cohort, it performed similarly to the Balkau score but worse than the Kahn clinical [AUC 0.788 vs. 0.793 (p = 0.091) and 0.816 (p<0.001)]. Diagnostic capacity of our score was better than the Balkau score and comparable to the Kahn clinical one.
conclusionOur clinically-based score shows encouraging results compared to other scores and can be used in populations with differing diabetes prevalence.
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.