scholarly journals Risk Assessment Tools for Identifying Individuals at Risk of Developing Type 2 Diabetes

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Buijsse ◽  
R. K. Simmons ◽  
S. J. Griffin ◽  
M. B. Schulze
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Comparison of IDRS and ADA Diabetes Risk Assessment Tools Reveals Different Rsk Score in Same Population: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in a Tertiary Care Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-18
Author(s):  
N. Akter ◽  
N.K. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Predicted Risk

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.

A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 3107-3111 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. T. Williams ◽  
P. T. Lawrence ◽  
K. L. Miller ◽  
J. L. Crook ◽  
J. LaFleur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Fracture Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Elderly Male ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Us Veterans

scholarly journals P19: THE RELIABILITY OF VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOLLOWING FREE FLAP RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LOWER EXTREMITIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Geoghegan ◽  
J Super ◽  
S Onida ◽  
S Hettiaratchy ◽  
A Davies
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Free Flap Reconstruction ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Lower Extremity Reconstruction ◽  
Extremity Reconstruction

Abstract Introduction The incidence of flap failure in lower extremity reconstruction is significantly higher in the lower extremity compared head, neck and breast reconstruction. The commonest cause of flap failure is venous thrombosis. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of VTE risk assessment tools in patients with open lower extremity fractures and to assess the ability of such tools to identify patients at risk of developing microvascular venous thrombosis following lower extremity free flap reconstruction. Method A single centre retrospective cohort study was conducted between August 2012-August 2019. All patients were risk assessed using the Department of Health (DoH), Modified Caprini and Padua VTE risk assessment tools. Result 58 patients were included, all were at high risk of DVT according to the DoH (mean score± SD, 3.7±0.93), Caprini (10.2±1.64) and Padua (5.4±0.86) risk assessment tools. All patients received thromboprophylaxis, the incidence of clinical deep venous thrombosis was 0%. Intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated moderate agreement between the Caprini and DoH (0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.84, p&lt;0.001), the Caprini and Padua (0.52, 95% CI 0.19-0.72, p&lt;0.001) and the DoH and Padua (0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, p&lt;0.001). Microvascular venous thrombosis occurred in 6 patients, resulting in 2 amputations. There were no significant differences in scores between those with and without venous complications. Conclusion Current VTE risk assessment tools do not identify patients at risk of developing venous complications following lower extremity reconstruction. Further prospective studies are required to optimise risk prediction models and thromboprophylaxis use in this cohort. Take-home message Current VTE risk assessment tools do not identify patients at risk of developing microvascular venous thrombosis following lower limb reconstruction.

Adopting Braden Q in the NICU to Identify Neonates at Risk of Developing Pressure Injuries

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323
Author(s):  
Michelle Wacek ◽  
Margaret Ecklund
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Risk Identification ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
Vulnerable Patient ◽  
Hospital Acquired

There are numerous factors placing neonates at increased risk of developing pressure injuries while hospitalized. Prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in this vulnerable patient population requires early risk identification. Unfortunately, identifying neonates who are at risk of developing pressure injuries is complicated because of the lack of pressure injury risk assessment tools validated for use in neonates. The Braden Q risk assessment scale was adopted by two NICUs within a health care system to aid in identifying neonates at risk of developing a pressure injury. Additionally, the electronic health record was adapted to assist nurses in implementation of appropriate interventions to prevent pressure injuries based on Braden Q subscores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document