普通人群2型糖尿病风险预测模型:一项观察性研究的系统综述

IF 2.1 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism Pub Date : 2021-03-22 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.5812/ijem.109206
Samaneh Asgari, Davood Khalili, Farhad Hosseinpanah, Farzad Hadaegh
{"title":"普通人群2型糖尿病风险预测模型:一项观察性研究的系统综述","authors":"Samaneh Asgari,&nbsp;Davood Khalili,&nbsp;Farhad Hosseinpanah,&nbsp;Farzad Hadaegh","doi":"10.5812/ijem.109206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.</p>","PeriodicalId":13969,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/3b/ijem-19-3-109206.PMC8453657.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Samaneh Asgari,&nbsp;Davood Khalili,&nbsp;Farhad Hosseinpanah,&nbsp;Farzad Hadaegh\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/ijem.109206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/3b/ijem-19-3-109206.PMC8453657.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"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.109206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

目的:本研究旨在通过透明报告个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型(TRIPOD)清单和预测模型风险偏倚评估工具(PROBAST),对未确诊的2型糖尿病(U-T2DM)或T2DM (I-T2DM)的预测模型进行概述。数据来源:检索了PUBMED和EMBASE数据库,以确保充分和有效的覆盖。研究选择:纳入2011年12月至2019年10月间发表的文章。数据提取:对于每篇文章,报告了关于模型开发要求、判别措施、校准、总体性能、临床有用性、过拟合和偏倚风险(ROB)的信息。结果:中位数(四分位数间距;46个研究人群中I-T2DM和U-T2DM模型开发的IQR数分别为5711(1971 - 27426)和2457(2060 - 6995)例。最常见的预测因素是年龄和体重指数,只有Qrisk-2017研究纳入了社会因素(例如汤森评分)。46%的研究报告了单变量分析,17.4%的研究报告的变量选择程序不明确。此外,43%的研究报告了内部和外部验证,而超过63%的研究报告了校准。I-T2DM模型AUC的中位数(IQR)为0.78 (0.74 ~ 0.82);2011年10月之前的研究对应值为0.80(0.77 ~ 0.83)。Qrisk-2017的歧视指数最高,女性的c统计值为0.89,男性为0.87。I-T2DM和U-T2DM的低ROB分别为18%和41%。结论:在预测模型中,在模型开发和验证的几个方面重新评估了中等到较差的质量。总的来说,尽管有新的危险因素或新的方法方面,新开发的模型并没有提高我们筛查/预测T2DM的能力,主要是在分析部分。这是由于预测模型缺乏外部验证。
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
Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

Objectives: This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

Data sources: Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.

Study selection: Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.

Data extraction: For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.

Results: The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.

Conclusions: Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.

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