File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review

TitleNon-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Authors
Keywordsearly detection
non-laboratory-based
pre-diabetes
risk prediction tools
Issue Date29-Mar-2023
PublisherMDPI
Citation
Diagnostics, 2023, v. 13, n. 7 How to Cite?
Abstract

Early detection of pre-diabetes (pre-DM) can prevent DM and related complications. This review examined studies on non-laboratory-based pre-DM risk prediction tools to identify important predictors and evaluate their performance. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL were searched in February 2023. Studies that developed tools with: (1) pre-DM as a prediction outcome, (2) fasting/post-prandial blood glucose/HbA1c as outcome measures, and (3) non-laboratory predictors only were included. The studies’ quality was assessed using the CASP Clinical Prediction Rule Checklist. Data on pre-DM definitions, predictors, validation methods, performances of the tools were extracted for narrative synthesis. A total of 6398 titles were identified and screened. Twenty-four studies were included with satisfactory quality. Eight studies (33.3%) developed pre-DM risk tools and sixteen studies (66.7%) focused on pre-DM and DM risks. Age, family history of DM, diagnosed hypertension and obesity measured by BMI and/or WC were the most common non-laboratory predictors. Existing tools showed satisfactory internal discrimination (AUROC: 0.68–0.82), sensitivity (0.60–0.89), and specificity (0.50–0.74). Only twelve studies (50.0%) had validated their tools externally, with a variance in the external discrimination (AUROC: 0.31–0.79) and sensitivity (0.31–0.92). Most non-laboratory-based risk tools for pre-DM detection showed satisfactory performance in their study populations. The generalisability of these tools was unclear since most lacked external validation.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/340839
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 3.992
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.622

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheng, WHG-
dc.contributor.authorMi, YQ-
dc.contributor.authorDong, WA-
dc.contributor.authorTse, ETY-
dc.contributor.authorWong, CKH-
dc.contributor.authorBedford, LE-
dc.contributor.authorLam, CL-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:47:41Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:47:41Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-29-
dc.identifier.citationDiagnostics, 2023, v. 13, n. 7-
dc.identifier.issn2075-4418-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/340839-
dc.description.abstract<p>Early detection of pre-diabetes (pre-DM) can prevent DM and related complications. This review examined studies on non-laboratory-based pre-DM risk prediction tools to identify important predictors and evaluate their performance. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL were searched in February 2023. Studies that developed tools with: (1) pre-DM as a prediction outcome, (2) fasting/post-prandial blood glucose/HbA1c as outcome measures, and (3) non-laboratory predictors only were included. The studies’ quality was assessed using the CASP Clinical Prediction Rule Checklist. Data on pre-DM definitions, predictors, validation methods, performances of the tools were extracted for narrative synthesis. A total of 6398 titles were identified and screened. Twenty-four studies were included with satisfactory quality. Eight studies (33.3%) developed pre-DM risk tools and sixteen studies (66.7%) focused on pre-DM and DM risks. Age, family history of DM, diagnosed hypertension and obesity measured by BMI and/or WC were the most common non-laboratory predictors. Existing tools showed satisfactory internal discrimination (AUROC: 0.68–0.82), sensitivity (0.60–0.89), and specificity (0.50–0.74). Only twelve studies (50.0%) had validated their tools externally, with a variance in the external discrimination (AUROC: 0.31–0.79) and sensitivity (0.31–0.92). Most non-laboratory-based risk tools for pre-DM detection showed satisfactory performance in their study populations. The generalisability of these tools was unclear since most lacked external validation.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMDPI-
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostics-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectearly detection-
dc.subjectnon-laboratory-based-
dc.subjectpre-diabetes-
dc.subjectrisk prediction tools-
dc.titleNon-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/diagnostics13071294-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85152666117-
dc.identifier.volume13-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.eissn2075-4418-
dc.identifier.issnl2075-4418-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats