ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2026
Screening performance of community-based assessment checklist compared with point of care screening tests to identify high-risk individuals for diabetes and hypertension in urban Mysore, India.
Article in The Indian journal of medical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives This study validates the discriminative ability of a community-based assessment checklist (CBAC) compared with other point-of-care tools for community screening to identify individuals at high risk of diabetes and hypertension. The data for this study were collected during 2019-20 in selected areas of Mysuru city, Karnataka. Methods CBAC was administered to residents aged 30 yrs and above, without known cases of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or cancer. Random capillary blood glucose (RCBG) and blood pressure (BP) were measured for comparison with the CBAC score. Screening performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and the area under the curve (AUC). Results CBAC was administered to 32,686 people, and 31,594 had complete data for CBAC and RBS, and 32,645 had both CBAC scores and BP values. The analysis showed a poor AUC of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.61-0.63) for identifying individuals at risk of diabetes with RCBG value of ≥140 mg/dL and an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60-0.61) for individuals at risk of hypertension with BP values of (systolic ≥140 mmHg OR diastolic ≥90 mmHg). Youden's index indicated that the CBAC cut-off of >4, though optimal for both at-risk of diabetes and hypertension, was poor at 0.17 and 0.15, respectively. Interpretation and conclusions The discriminative ability of CBAC was found to be poor compared with other point-of-care tools. We propose that trained frontline health staff administer RCBG and BP tests alongside the CBAC to enable more efficient public health triaging.
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.