Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37215820›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

Performance of a prediabetes risk prediction model: A systematic review.

Yujin Liu, Wenming Feng, Jianlin Lou, Wei Qiu, Jiantong Shen, Zhichao Zhu, Yuting Hua, Mei Zhang, Laura Flavorta Billong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Yujin LiuSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Wenming FengHuzhou First People's Hospital, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Jianlin LouHuzhou Key Laboratory of Precise Prevention and Control of Major Chronic Diseases, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Wei QiuDepartment of Endocrinology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Jiantong ShenSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Zhichao ZhuSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Yuting HuaSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Mei ZhangSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Laura Flavorta BillongSchools of Nursing and Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Backgrounds: The prediabetes population is large and easily overlooked because of the lack of obvious symptoms, which can progress to diabetes. Early screening and targeted interventions can substantially reduce the rate of conversion of prediabetes to diabetes. Therefore, this study systematically reviewed prediabetes risk prediction models, performed a summary and quality evaluation, and aimed to recommend the optimal model. Methods: We systematically searched five databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, and CNKI) for published literature related to prediabetes risk prediction models and excluded preprints, duplicate publications, reviews, editorials, and other studies, with a search time frame of March 01, 2023. Data were categorized and summarized using a standardized data extraction form that extracted data including author; publication date; study design; country; demographic characteristics; assessment tool name; sample size; study type; and model-related indicators. The PROBAST tool was used to assess the risk of bias profile of included studies. Findings: 14 studies with a total of 15 models were eventually included in the systematic review. We found that the most common predictors of models were age, family history of diabetes, gender, history of hypertension, and BMI. Most of the studies (83.3%) had a high risk of bias, mainly related to under-reporting of outcome information and poor methodological design during the development and validation of models. Due to the low quality of included studies, the evidence for predictive validity of the available models is unclear. Interpretation: We should pay attention to the early screening of prediabetes patients and give timely pharmacological and lifestyle interventions. The predictive performance of the existing model is not satisfactory, and the model building process can be standardized and external validation can be added to improve the accuracy of the model in the future.

Indexed as

PrediabetesRisk prediction modelScreening toolSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37215820
PMCPMC10196520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.