ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Comparison of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score Model With the Metabolic Syndrome in a Shanghai Population.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dual domain systematic review and meta-analysis of risk tool accuracy to predict cardiovascular morbidity in prehypertension and diabetic morbidity in prediabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Adaptation of finnish diabetes risk score for screening undiagnosed diabetes and hyperglycemia in Chinese adults.PloS one · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the metabolic syndrome with the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) to screen for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a Shanghai population. Methods: Participants aged 25-64 years were recruited from a Shanghai population from July 2019 to March 2020. Each participant underwent a standard metabolic work-up, including clinical examination with anthropometry. Glucose status was tested using hemoglobin A1c (HbAlc), 2h-post-load glucose (2hPG), and fasting blood glucose (FBG). The FINDRISC questionnaire and the metabolic syndrome were examined. The performance of the FINDRISC was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Results: Of the 713 subjects, 9.1% were diagnosed with prediabetes, whereas 5.2% were diagnosed with T2DM. A total of 172 subjects had the metabolic syndrome. A higher FINDRISC score was positively associated with the prevalence of T2DM and the metabolic syndrome. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that the FINDRISC had a linear regression relationship with 2hPG levels (b'= 036, p < 0.0001). The AUC-ROC of the FINDRISC to identify subjects with T2DM among the total population was 0.708 (95% CI 0.639-0.776), the sensitivity was 44.6%, and the specificity was 90.1%, with 11 as the cut-off point. After adding FBG or 2hPG to the FINDRISC, the AUC-ROC among the total population significantly increased to 0.785 (95% CI 0.671-0.899) and 0.731 (95% CI 0.619-0.843), respectively, while the AUC-ROC among the female group increased to 0.858 (95% CI 0.753-0.964) and 0.823 (95% CI 0.730-0.916), respectively (p < 0.001). The AUC-ROC of the metabolic syndrome to identify subjects with T2DM among the total and female population was 0.805 (95% CI 0.767-0.844) and 0.830 (95% CI 0.788-0.872), respectively, with seven as the cut-off point. Conclusions: The metabolic syndrome performed better than the FINDRISC model. The metabolic syndrome and the FINDRISC with FBG or 2hPG in a two-step screening model are both efficacious clinical practices for predicting T2DM in a Shanghai population.
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.