ArticleJournal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
Comparison of 3 risk factor-based screening tools for the identification of prediabetes.
Article in Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare risk factor-based screening tools for identifying prediabetes.
methodsParticipants in an employer-based wellness program were tested for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) at a regularly scheduled appointment, and prediabetes risk factor information was collected. The likelihood of having prediabetes and the need for laboratory testing were determined based on 3 risk factor-based screening tools: the Prediabetes Screening Test (PST), Prediabetes Risk Test (PRT), and 2016 American Diabetes Association guidelines (ADA2016). The results from the screening tools were compared with those of the A1C test. The predictive ability of the PST, PRT, and ADA2016 were compared using logistic regression. Results were validated with data from a secondary population.
resultsOf the 3 risk factor-based tools examined, the PRT demonstrated the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes. From July 2016 to March 2017, 740 beneficiaries of an employer-sponsored wellness program had their A1C tested and provided risk factor information. The population prevalence of prediabetes was 9.3%. Analysis of a second independent population with a prediabetes prevalence of more than 50% of confirmed PRT's superiority despite differences in the calculated sensitivity and specificity for each population.
conclusionBecause PRT predicts prediabetes better than PST or ADA2016, it should be used preferentially.
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.