scholarly journals Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (641) ◽  
pp. e852-e860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Gray ◽  
Richard M Bracken ◽  
Daniel Turner ◽  
Kerry Morgan ◽  
Michael Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
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.

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

scholarly journals Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at risk: a cross-sectional analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-167
Author(s):  
Nazma Akter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Type2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Diabetes Risk Score

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

Suicide risk assessment in a large public mental health service: do suicide risk classifications identify those at risk?

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622098403
Author(s):  
Marianne Wyder ◽  
Manaan Kar Ray ◽  
Samara Russell ◽  
Kieran Kinsella ◽  
David Crompton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Public Mental Health ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Public Mental Health Service ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Introduction: Risk assessment tools are routinely used to identify patients at high risk. There is increasing evidence that these tools may not be sufficiently accurate to determine the risk of suicide of people, particularly those being treated in community mental health settings. Methods: An outcome analysis for case serials of people who died by suicide between January 2014 and December 2016 and had contact with a public mental health service within 31 days prior to their death. Results: Of the 68 people who had contact, 70.5% had a formal risk assessment. Seventy-five per cent were classified as low risk of suicide. None were identified as being at high risk. While individual risk factors were identified, these did not allow to differentiate between patients classified as low or medium. Discussion: Risk categorisation contributes little to patient safety. Given the dynamic nature of suicide risk, a risk assessment should focus on modifiable risk factors and safety planning rather than risk prediction. Conclusion: The prediction value of suicide risk assessment tools is limited. The risk classifications of high, medium or low could become the basis of denying necessary treatment to many and delivering unnecessary treatment to some and should not be used for care allocation.

Factors Associated With a Higher Risk of Undiagnosed Prediabetes in a Community-Dwelling Medicare Population

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Cynthia S. Valle-Oseguera ◽  
Carly A. Ranson ◽  
Patricia Tam ◽  
Jacqueline Le ◽  
Brandon Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Medication Therapy ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Increased Risk

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics in an ambulatory Medicare population that are significantly more likely to be associated with a high risk of undiagnosed prediabetes.<br/> DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.<br/> SETTING: Fourteen health clinics targeting Medicare beneficiaries were held throughout northern and central California during the fall of 2017.<br/> PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries receiving medication therapy management services without self-reported diabetes.<br/> INTERVENTIONS: Beneficiaries were screened for their risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) through the use of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk assessment (score of ≥ 5 indicates increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes) by pharmacy students. For this study, patients with a score of ≥ 5 were considered to be at high risk for undiagnosed prediabetes.<br/> MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Characteristics significantly more likely to be identified in patients at high risk for undiagnosed prediabetes.<br/> RESULTS: A total of 683 Medicare beneficiaries without self-reported diabetes completed the ADA risk assessment, with 457 (66.9%) receiving a score of 5 or more. In those, the presence of hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, coronary heart disease, and use of aspirin were all characteristics researchers identified as significantly more likely to be found in this group. In contrast, those of Asian race or who took dietary supplements were significantly less likely to score 5 or higher in the questionnaire.<br/> CONCLUSION: Identification of older adults at higher risk for undiagnosed prediabetes through the use of appropriate screening tools allows for targeted preventive interventions, potentially lowering risk of developing T2DM for selected patients.

scholarly journals A non-exercise method to determine cardiorespiratory fitness identifies females predicted to be at ‘high risk’ of type 2 diabetes

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Gray ◽  
Jeffrey W Stephens ◽  
Daniel Turner ◽  
Michael Thomas ◽  
Sally P Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Exercise Testing ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Testing Method ◽  
Metabolic Equivalents

This study examined the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness determined by a non-exercise testing method for estimating fitness and predicted risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus using five risk assessments/questionnaires (Leicester Diabetes Risk Score, QDiabetes, Cambridge Risk Score, Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and American Diabetes Association Diabetes Risk Test). Retrospective analysis was performed on 330 female individuals with no prior diagnosis of cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus who participated in the Prosiect Sir Gâr workplace initiative in Carmarthenshire, South Wales. Non-exercise testing method for estimating fitness (expressed as metabolic equivalents) was calculated using a validated algorithm, and females were grouped accordingly into fitness quintiles <6.8 metabolic equivalents (Quintile 1), 6.8–7.6 metabolic equivalents (Quintile 2), 7.6–8.6 metabolic equivalents (Quintile 3), 8.6–9.5 metabolic equivalents (Quintile 4), >9.5 metabolic equivalents (Quintile 5). Body mass index, waist circumference, and HbA1c all decreased between increasing non-exercise testing method for estimating fitness quintiles ( p < 0.05), as did risk prediction scores in each of the five assessments/questionnaires ( p < 0.05). The proportion of females in Quintile 1 predicted at ‘high risk’ was between 20.9% and 81.4%, depending on diabetes risk assessment used, compared to none of the females in Quintile 5. A calculated non-exercise testing method for estimating fitness <6.8 metabolic equivalents could help to identify females at ‘high risk’ of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus as predicted using five risk assessments/questionnaires.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document