芬兰糖尿病风险评分和澳大利亚糖尿病风险评估工具预测模型识别未确诊2型糖尿病的外部验证:伊朗的一项横断面研究

IF 2.1 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.5812/ijem-127114
Saeedeh Mahmoodzadeh, Younes Jahani, Hamid Najafipour, Mojgan Sanjari, Mitra Shadkam-Farokhi, Armita Shahesmaeili
{"title":"芬兰糖尿病风险评分和澳大利亚糖尿病风险评估工具预测模型识别未确诊2型糖尿病的外部验证:伊朗的一项横断面研究","authors":"Saeedeh Mahmoodzadeh,&nbsp;Younes Jahani,&nbsp;Hamid Najafipour,&nbsp;Mojgan Sanjari,&nbsp;Mitra Shadkam-Farokhi,&nbsp;Armita Shahesmaeili","doi":"10.5812/ijem-127114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive risk prediction models have been widely used in various settings to identify individuals with undiagnosed diabetes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK) to screen undiagnosed diabetes in Kerman, Iran.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from 2014 to 2018 in the second round of the Kerman Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors Study (KERCADRS), Iran. Participants aged 35 - 65 with no history of confirmed diabetes were eligible. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and decision curve analysis were applied to evaluate the discrimination power and clinical usefulness of the models, respectively. The calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the calibration plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 3262 participants, 145 (4.44%) had undiagnosed diabetes. The estimated AUROCs were 0.67 and 0.62 for the AUSDRISK and FINDRISC models, respectively (P < 0.001). The chi-square test results for FINDRISC and AUSDRISC were 7.90 and 16.47 for the original model and 3.69 and 14.61 for the recalibrated model, respectively. Based on the decision curves, useful threshold ranges for the original models of FINDRIS and AUSDRISK were 4% to 10% and 3% to 13%, respectively. Useful thresholds for the recalibrated models of FINDRISC and AUSDRISK were 4% to 8% and 4% to 9%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The original AUSDRISK model performs better than FINDRISC in identifying patients with undiagnosed diabetes and could be used as a simple and noninvasive tool where access to laboratory facilities is costly or limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":13969,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9b/46/ijem-20-4-127114.PMC9871969.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External Validation of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool Prediction Models to Identify People with Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-sectional Study in Iran.\",\"authors\":\"Saeedeh Mahmoodzadeh,&nbsp;Younes Jahani,&nbsp;Hamid Najafipour,&nbsp;Mojgan Sanjari,&nbsp;Mitra Shadkam-Farokhi,&nbsp;Armita Shahesmaeili\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/ijem-127114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive risk prediction models have been widely used in various settings to identify individuals with undiagnosed diabetes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK) to screen undiagnosed diabetes in Kerman, Iran.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from 2014 to 2018 in the second round of the Kerman Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors Study (KERCADRS), Iran. Participants aged 35 - 65 with no history of confirmed diabetes were eligible. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and decision curve analysis were applied to evaluate the discrimination power and clinical usefulness of the models, respectively. The calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the calibration plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 3262 participants, 145 (4.44%) had undiagnosed diabetes. The estimated AUROCs were 0.67 and 0.62 for the AUSDRISK and FINDRISC models, respectively (P < 0.001). The chi-square test results for FINDRISC and AUSDRISC were 7.90 and 16.47 for the original model and 3.69 and 14.61 for the recalibrated model, respectively. Based on the decision curves, useful threshold ranges for the original models of FINDRIS and AUSDRISK were 4% to 10% and 3% to 13%, respectively. Useful thresholds for the recalibrated models of FINDRISC and AUSDRISK were 4% to 8% and 4% to 9%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The original AUSDRISK model performs better than FINDRISC in identifying patients with undiagnosed diabetes and could be used as a simple and noninvasive tool where access to laboratory facilities is costly or limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9b/46/ijem-20-4-127114.PMC9871969.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem-127114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem-127114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:无创风险预测模型已广泛应用于各种环境中,以识别未确诊的糖尿病患者。目的:我们旨在评估芬兰糖尿病风险评分(FINDRISC)和澳大利亚糖尿病风险评估(AUSDRISK)筛查伊朗克尔曼未确诊糖尿病的区别、校准和临床实用性。方法:我们分析了伊朗Kerman冠状动脉疾病危险因素研究(KERCADRS)第二轮2014 - 2018年的数据。受试者年龄在35 - 65岁之间,无糖尿病病史。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)和决策曲线分析分别评价模型的鉴别能力和临床实用性。采用Hosmer-Lemeshow检验和校正图进行校正。结果:在3262名参与者中,145名(4.44%)患有未确诊的糖尿病。AUSDRISK和FINDRISC模型的估计auroc分别为0.67和0.62 (P < 0.001)。原始模型的FINDRISC和AUSDRISC的卡方检验结果分别为7.90和16.47,重新校准模型的卡方检验结果分别为3.69和14.61。基于决策曲线,FINDRIS和AUSDRISK原始模型的有用阈值范围分别为4% ~ 10%和3% ~ 13%。重新校准的FINDRISC和AUSDRISK模型的有用阈值分别为4%至8%和4%至9%。结论:原始的AUSDRISK模型在识别未确诊糖尿病患者方面优于FINDRISC模型,可以作为一种简单且无创的工具,在实验室设施昂贵或有限的情况下使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
External Validation of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool Prediction Models to Identify People with Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-sectional Study in Iran.

Background: Noninvasive risk prediction models have been widely used in various settings to identify individuals with undiagnosed diabetes.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK) to screen undiagnosed diabetes in Kerman, Iran.

Methods: We analyzed data from 2014 to 2018 in the second round of the Kerman Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors Study (KERCADRS), Iran. Participants aged 35 - 65 with no history of confirmed diabetes were eligible. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and decision curve analysis were applied to evaluate the discrimination power and clinical usefulness of the models, respectively. The calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the calibration plots.

Results: Out of 3262 participants, 145 (4.44%) had undiagnosed diabetes. The estimated AUROCs were 0.67 and 0.62 for the AUSDRISK and FINDRISC models, respectively (P < 0.001). The chi-square test results for FINDRISC and AUSDRISC were 7.90 and 16.47 for the original model and 3.69 and 14.61 for the recalibrated model, respectively. Based on the decision curves, useful threshold ranges for the original models of FINDRIS and AUSDRISK were 4% to 10% and 3% to 13%, respectively. Useful thresholds for the recalibrated models of FINDRISC and AUSDRISK were 4% to 8% and 4% to 9%, respectively.

Conclusions: The original AUSDRISK model performs better than FINDRISC in identifying patients with undiagnosed diabetes and could be used as a simple and noninvasive tool where access to laboratory facilities is costly or limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The aim of the International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism (IJEM) is to increase knowledge, stimulate research in the field of endocrinology, and promote better management of patients with endocrinological disorders. To achieve this goal, the journal publishes original research papers on human, animal and cell culture studies relevant to endocrinology.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Tecar Therapy and Low-Level Laser Therapy Separately and Simultaneously on Clinical Symptoms and Health-Related Quality of Life in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes: A 3-Month Follow-up Study ‘’Wait and See’’ as a Treatment Option for a Rathke’s Cleft Cyst Apoplexy in Pediatric Population: A Case Report Evaluation of the Effects of Incorporating Long-Acting Subcutaneous Insulin Into the Standard Treatment Protocol for Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Children Primary Hyperaldosteronism in a Normotensive Patient: A Case Report What About My Weight? Insufficient Weight Loss or Weight Regain After Bariatric Metabolic Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1