ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2025
Development and validation of a Jordan-specific risk score for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Jordan has a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but it is estimated that nearly half of all cases in the Middle East and North Africa region remain undiagnosed. This study aimed to develop, validate and assess the diagnostic performance of a diabetes risk score to identify Jordanians at high risk of T2DM. Methods: Random samples of 5000 Jordanians aged 20-79 years were simulated at different time points using an existing mathematical model describing T2DM epidemiology in Jordan. The risk score was derived through logistic regression applied to the simulated samples, using age, sex, obesity, smoking and physical inactivity as predictive variables. Cut-off values were determined based on the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity. Results: In 2020, the estimated area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of the derived Jordan Diabetes Risk Score were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.80), 78.7% (95% CI: 77.5 to 79.8%) and 64.2% (95% CI: 62.9 to 65.6%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 29.7% (95% CI: 28.4 to 31.0%) and 94.0% (95% CI: 93.3 to 94.7%), with 42.7% of Jordanians at high risk for diabetes. Similar diagnostic metrics were observed for the 2030 and 2050 risk scores, with AUCs of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.80) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.79), respectively. The performance of the derived model-based score was comparable to a survey-based score and demonstrated better performance within the Jordanian population compared with existing regional and international scores. Conclusions: The Jordan Diabetes Risk Score demonstrated strong diagnostic performance, offering an effective, non-invasive and accessible tool for diabetes screening. This tool can facilitate early detection, timely intervention and increased awareness, ultimately aiming to reduce the burden of T2DM and its complications in Jordan.
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.