ArticleDiabetes & metabolism journal2022
Performance of Diabetes and Kidney Disease Screening Scores in Contemporary United States and Korean Populations.
Article in Diabetes & metabolism journal, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and risk assessment using a validated survey in community-based screening in Amman, Jordan.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Global, Regional, and National Temporal Trends in Incidence for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Related Chronic Kidney Disease from 1992 to 2021.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk assessment tools have been actively studied, and they summarize key predictors with relative weights/importance for a disease. Currently, standardized screening scores for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD)-two key global health problems-are available in United States and Korea. We aimed to compare and evaluate screening scores for DM (or combined with prediabetes) and CKD, and assess the risk in contemporary United States and Korean populations.
methodsFour (2×2) models were evaluated in the United States-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2015-2018) and Korea-NHANES (2016-2018)-8,928 and 16,209 adults. Weighted statistics were used to describe population characteristics. We used logistic regression for predictors in the models to assess associations with study outcomes (undiagnosed DM and CKD) and diagnostic measures for temporal and cross-validation.
resultsKorean adult population (mean age 47.5 years) appeared to be healthier than United States counterpart, in terms of DM and CKD risks and associated factors, with exceptions of undiagnosed DM, prediabetes and prehypertension. Models performed well in own country and external populations regarding predictor-outcome association and discrimination. Risk tests (high vs. low) showed area under the curve >0.75, sensitivity >84%, specificity >45%, positive predictive value >8%, and negative predictive value >99%. Discrimination was better for DM, compared to the combined outcome of DM and prediabetes, and excellent for CKD due to age.
conclusionFour easy-to-use screening scores for DM and CKD are well-validated in contemporary United States and Korean populations. Prevention of DM and CKD may serve as first-step in public health, with these self-assessment tools as basic tools to help health education and disparity.
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.