Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900570›Full record

ArticleGlobal heart2021

Pitfalls of Single Measurement Screening for Diabetes and Hypertension in Community-Based Settings.

Stephen Olivier, Thomas Murray, Philippa Matthews, Ngcebo Mhlongo, Resign Gunda, Kathy Baisley, Dickman Gareta, Tshwaraganang Modise, Theresa Smit, Kobus Herbst and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Stephen OlivierAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Thomas MurrayAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Philippa MatthewsAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Ngcebo MhlongoAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Resign GundaAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Kathy BaisleyAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Dickman GaretaAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Tshwaraganang ModiseAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Theresa SmitAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Kobus HerbstAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Xolile MpofanaAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Thumbi Ndung'uAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Olivier KooleAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Deenan PillayAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Willem HanekomAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Emily WongAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Mark J SiednerAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
Vukuzazi Study team
Africa Health Research Institute · ZAInstitute of Infection and Immunity · CAHarvard University · USLondon Borough of Islington · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSouth African Association for Marine Biological Research · ZAUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201433/Z/16/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cross-sectional screening programs are used to detect and refer individuals with non-communicable diseases to healthcare services. We evaluated the positive predictive value of cross-sectional measurements for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HTN) as part of a community-based disease screening study, 'Vukuzazi' in rural South Africa. Methods: We conducted community-based screening for HTN and DM using the World Health Organization STEPS protocol and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, respectively. Nurses conducted follow-up home visits for confirmatory diagnostic testing among individuals with a screening BP above 140/90 mmHg and/or HbA1c above 6.5% at the initial screen, and without a prior diagnosis. We assessed the positive predictive value of the initial screening, compared to the follow up measure. We also sought to identify a screening threshold for HTN and DM with greater than 90% positive predictive value. Results: Of 18,027 participants enrolled, 10.2% (1,831) had a screening BP over 140/90 mmHg. Of those without a prior diagnosis, 871 (47.6%) received follow-up measurements. Only 51.2% (451) of those with completed follow-up measurements had a repeat BP>140/90 mmHg at the home visit and were referred to care. To achieve a 90% correct referral rate, a systolic BP threshold of 192 was needed at first screening. For DM screening, 1,615 (9.0%) individuals had an HbA1c > 6.5%, and of those without a prior diagnosis, 1,151 (71.2%) received a follow-up blood glucose. Of these, only 34.1% (395) met criteria for referral for DM. To ensure a 90% positive predictive value i.e. a screening HbA1c of >16.6% was needed. Conclusions: A second home-based screening visit to confirm a diagnosis of DM and HTN reduced health system referrals by 48% and 66%, respectively. Two-day screening programmes for DM and HTN screening might save individual and healthcare resources and should be evaluated carefully in future cost effectiveness evaluations.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusHypertensionBlood PressureCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMass ScreeningDiabeteshypertensionScreening

Identifiers

PMID34900570
PMCPMC8641532
OpenAlexW4200217536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.