Survey of diabetes risk assessment tools: concepts, structure and performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thitaporn Thoopputra ◽  
David Newby ◽  
Jennifer Schneider ◽  
Shu Chuen Li
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-18
Author(s):  
N. Akter ◽  
N.K. Qureshi

Background: To identify individuals at high risk of developing type2 diabetes (T2DM), use of a validated risk-assessment tool is currently recommended. Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that risk scores that are developed in the same country can lead to different results of an individual. The Objective of study was to reveal whether two different risk-assessment tools predict similar or dissimilar high-risk score in same population. Method: This cross-sectional analytical study was carried upon 336 non-diabetic adults visiting the outpatient department (OPD) of Medicine, MARKS Medical College & Hospital, Bangladesh from October 2018 to March 2019. Woman having previous history of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) were also included. Both the Indian Diabetes risk Score (IDRS) and the American Diabetes (ADA) Risk Score questionnaire were used to collect the data on demographic and clinical characteristics, different risk factors of an individual subject, and to calculate predicted risk score for developing T2DM. Results: Among 336 subjects, 53.6% were female. The mean (±SD) age of the study subjects was 38.25±1.12 years. The average IDRS predicted risk score of developing T2DM was more in female subjects than male [p<0.05]. Whereas the ADA predicted increased risk score of developing type 2 diabetes was more in male subjects than female (p<0.05). IDRS categorized 37.2 % of individuals at high risk for developing diabetes; [p=0.10], while the ADA risk tool categorized 20.2% subjects in high risk group; [p<0.001]. Conclusions: The results indicate that risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent T2DM, risk scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.


2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. S74-S75
Author(s):  
Maylene Fong ◽  
Ann F. Sarte ◽  
Kitty Yung ◽  
Laura Ng ◽  
Sharon Koehn ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Featherstone ◽  
Dean T. Eurich ◽  
Scot H. Simpson

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. A100
Author(s):  
T. Thoopputra ◽  
S. Li ◽  
D. Newby ◽  
J. Schneider

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-167
Author(s):  
Nazma Akter

Background: Use of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual. This study explored any differences between two commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type2 diabetes. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted between July 2018 and June 2019 in the medicine outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Total 518 subjects, aged ranging from 22 to 68 years was included in the study. Randomly sampled non- diabetic subjects, and those who had previous history of high blood glucose during pregnancy or other health examination (i.e. impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance or gestational diabetes mellitus) were included for the study. With written informed consent, both the Indian Diabetes Risk Score (IDRS) and the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) questionnaire were used to collect the data including demographic characteristics and different risk factors of an individual subject, and to calculate total risk score for predictors the risk of developing T2DM within 10 years. Results: Among 518 subjects, 48.1% were male and 51.9% were female. Differences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following cross-sectional analysis of individuals. IDRS (Indian Diabetes Risk Score) categorized 37.8 % (male vs. female: 14.8 % vs. 23.0%) of individuals at high risk. Whereas, 8.3% (male vs. female: 1.9% vs. 6.4%) were at high risk according to FINDRISC (Finish Diabetes Risk Score) system. Conclusions: The results indicate that the prevalence of participants at risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent type2 diabetes, risk scoring systems must be validated for each population considered. Birdem Med J 2020; 10(3): 159-167


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document