ReviewDiagnostic and prognostic research2026
Performance of the Leicester risk assessment and Leicester practice risk scores for assessing the risk of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or prediabetes in diverse populations: protocol for a systematic review of published validations and updates.
Review in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately one million adults in the UK are estimated to have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a further 5.1 million adults with nondiabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) that does not meet the threshold for a diabetes diagnosis. The Leicester Risk Assessment score (LRA) and Leicester Practice Risk score (LPR) are diagnostic risk prediction models that estimate an individual's risk of undiagnosed T2DM and NDH, developed for use in community and primary care settings respectively. The LRA is also used as a prognostic model; neither model has been updated since development. This study will systematically review all applications of these models as diagnostic and prognostic tools and any published updates to evaluate their performance in different populations. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251005841).
methodsWe will implement a citation search strategy to search Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, restricted to full text, English language papers. Eligible papers will validate, update or modify either model. Data will be extracted using a form based on the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist; missing information will be sought from authors or estimated from other available information where possible. Meta-analysis of predictive performance measures will be completed if sufficient data exist. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore between-study heterogeneity and risk-of-bias impact. DISCUSSION: This review will identify studies that have implemented, modified or validated the LRA and LPR for the risk of undiagnosed T2DM and NDH in different populations. This will allow summary measures, including level of uncertainty, of model performance to be calculated, making this highly relevant to individuals and stakeholders who recommend and implement these models. Review conclusions will also inform the potential update and recalibration of the models. This will ultimately lead to improved outcomes through earlier diagnosis and management.
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.