ArticleBMJ open2024
External validation of three diabetes prediction scores in a Spanish cohort: does adding high risk for depression improve the validation of the FINDRISC score (FINDRISC-MOOD)?
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the external validity of the FINDRISC, DESIR and ADA risk scores for the prediction of diabetes in a Spanish population aged >45 years and to test the possible improvement of FINDRISC by adding a new variable of high risk of depression when Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) questionnaire score ≥10 (FINDRISC-MOOD).
designProspective population-based cohort study.
setting10 primary healthcare centres in the north of the city of Madrid (Spain).
participantsA total of 1242 participants without a history of diabetes and with 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) plasma glucose <200 mg/dL (<11.1 mmol/L) were followed up for 7.3 years (median) using their electronic health records (EHRs) and telephone contact. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diabetes risk scores (FINDRISC, DESIR, ADA), PHQ-9 questionnaire and 2-hour-OGTT were measured at baseline. Incident diabetes was defined as treatment for diabetes, fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL (≥7.0 mmol/L), new EHR diagnosis or self-reported diagnosis. External validation was performed according to optimal cut-off, sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index. Comparison between diabetes risk scores, including FINDRISC-MOOD (original FINDRISC score plus five points if PHQ-9 ≥10), was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsDuring follow-up, 104 (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.8 to 9.9) participants developed diabetes and 185 had a PHQ-9 score ≥10. The AUROC values were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72) for FINDRISC-MOOD and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.71) for the original FINDRISC. The AUROCs for DESIR and ADA were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69), respectively. There were no significant differences in AUROC between FINDRISC-MOOD and the other scores.
conclusionsThe results of FINDRISC-MOOD were like those of the other risk scores and do not allow it to be recommended for clinical use.
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.