Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36714189›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of endocrinology and metabolism2022

External Validation of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool Prediction Models to Identify People with Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-sectional Study in Iran.

Saeedeh Mahmoodzadeh, Younes Jahani, Hamid Najafipour, Mojgan Sanjari, Mitra Shadkam-Farokhi, Armita Shahesmaeili

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Saeedeh MahmoodzadehSchool of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Younes JahaniModeling in Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6808-7101
Hamid NajafipourCardiovascular Research Center, Institute of Basic and Clinical Physiology Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Mojgan SanjariEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Institute of Basic and Clinical Physiology Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3402-4401
Mitra Shadkam-FarokhiGastrointestinal and Hepatology Research Center, Institute of Basic and Clinical Physiology Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Armita ShahesmaeiliHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9270-319X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Noninvasive risk prediction models have been widely used in various settings to identify individuals with undiagnosed diabetes. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK) to screen undiagnosed diabetes in Kerman, Iran. Methods: We analyzed data from 2014 to 2018 in the second round of the Kerman Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors Study (KERCADRS), Iran. Participants aged 35 - 65 with no history of confirmed diabetes were eligible. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and decision curve analysis were applied to evaluate the discrimination power and clinical usefulness of the models, respectively. The calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the calibration plots. Results: Out of 3262 participants, 145 (4.44%) had undiagnosed diabetes. The estimated AUROCs were 0.67 and 0.62 for the AUSDRISK and FINDRISC models, respectively (P < 0.001). The chi-square test results for FINDRISC and AUSDRISC were 7.90 and 16.47 for the original model and 3.69 and 14.61 for the recalibrated model, respectively. Based on the decision curves, useful threshold ranges for the original models of FINDRIS and AUSDRISK were 4% to 10% and 3% to 13%, respectively. Useful thresholds for the recalibrated models of FINDRISC and AUSDRISK were 4% to 8% and 4% to 9%, respectively. Conclusions: The original AUSDRISK model performs better than FINDRISC in identifying patients with undiagnosed diabetes and could be used as a simple and noninvasive tool where access to laboratory facilities is costly or limited.

Indexed as

CalibrationClinical UsefulnessDiscriminationIranKermanRisk Prediction ModelType 2 Diabetes

Identifiers

PMID36714189
PMCPMC9871969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.