ArticleBMC public health2024
Indirect estimation of the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the sub-population of Tehran: using non-laboratory risk-score models in Iran.
Article in BMC public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the population covered by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences is unclear but crucial for healthcare programs. This study aims to validate four non-laboratory risk-score models, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Risk Score, Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool (AUSDRISK), Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC), and TOPICS Diabetes Screening Score, for identifying undiagnosed diabetes and indirectly estimate the prevalence of T2DM in a subset of the Tehranian population using the selected model.
methodsThis research consisted of two main parts. In the first part, non-laboratory risk-score models to identify undiagnosed T2DM were validated using Iranian data from STEPs 2016 survey. The model performance was evaluated through the Area Under the Curve (AUC) and calibration via the observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio. Additional independent data from STEPs 2011 survey in Iran were utilized to test the model results by comparing indirect prevalence estimates with observed estimates. In the second part, the prevalence of T2DM was estimated indirectly by applying the selected model to a representative random sample from a Tehranian population telephone survey conducted in 2023.
resultsAmong the different models used, AUSDRISK showed the best performance in both discrimination (AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.80 (0.78, 0.81)) and calibration (O/E ratio = 1.01). After updating the original model, there was no change in the AUC value or calibration. Additionally, our findings indicate that the indirect estimates are nearly identical to the observed values in STEPs 2011 survey. In the second part of the study, by applying the recalibrated model to a subsample, the indirect prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and T2DM (95% CI) were estimated at 4.18% (3.87, 4.49) and 11.1% (9.34, 13.1), respectively.
conclusionGiven the strong performance of the model, it appears that indirect method can provide a cost-effective and simple approach to assess disease prevalence and intervention effectiveness.
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.