Dataset Information

Analysis of guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus in an ambulatory population.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the case-finding ability of current national guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus and characterize factors that affect testing practices in an ambulatory population.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed a database of 46,991 nondiabetic patients aged 20 years and older who were seen at a large Midwestern academic physician practice from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Patients were included in the sample if they were currently being treated by the physician group according to Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality criteria. Pregnant patients, diabetic patients, and patients who died during the study years were excluded. The prevalence of patients who met the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and/or US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for diabetes screening, percentage of these patients screened, and number of new diabetes diagnoses per guideline were evaluated. Screening rates were assessed by number of high-risk factors, primary care specialty, and insurance status.

Results

A total of 33,823 (72.0%) of 46,991 patients met either the ADA or the USPSTF screening criteria, and 28,842 (85.3%) of the eligible patients were tested. More patients met the ADA criteria than the 2008 USPSTF criteria (30,790 [65.5%] vs 12,054 [25.6%]), and the 2008 USPSTF guidelines resulted in 460 fewer diagnoses of diabetes (33.1%). By single high-risk factor, prediabetes (15.8%) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (12.6%) produced the highest rates of diagnosis. The number of ADA high-risk factors predicted diabetes, with 6 (23%) of 26 patients with 6 risk factors diagnosed as having diabetes. Uninsured patients were tested significantly less often than insured patients (54.9% vs 85.4%).

Conclusion

Compared with the ADA recommendations, the new USPSTF guidelines result in a lower number of patients eligible for screening and decrease case finding significantly. The number and type of risk factors predict diabetes, and lack of health insurance decreases testing.

SUBMITTER: Sheehy AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2800288 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus in an ambulatory population.

Sheehy Ann M AM Flood Grace E GE Tuan Wen-Jan WJ Liou Jinn-ing JI Coursin Douglas B DB Smith Maureen A MA

Mayo Clinic proceedings 20100101 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the case-finding ability of current national guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus and characterize factors that affect testing practices in an ambulatory population.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed a database of 46,991 nondiabetic patients aged 20 years and older who were seen at a large Midwestern academic physician practice from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Patients were included in the sample if they we ...[more]

PMID: 20042558

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Guidelines for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been updated in the past several years, and various inconsistencies exist across these guidelines. Moreover, the quality of these updated guidelines has not been clarified. We thus conducted this systematic review to evaluate the relationship between the quality and detailed recommendations of these guidelines. DATA SOURCES:The Guidelines International Network Library, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) database, the Medline database, the Embase and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse were searched for guidelines containing recommendations on screening and diagnosis strategies for GDM between 2009 and November 2018. METHODS:Guidelines included a target group of women with GDM, and contained recommendations for screening and diagnostic strategies for GDM were included in the present systematic review. Reviewers summarised recommendations on screening and diagnosis strategies from each guideline and rated the quality of guidelines by using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. RESULTS:A total of 459 citations were collected by the preliminary literature selection, and 16 guidelines that met the inclusion criteria were assessed. The inconsistencies of the guidelines mainly focus on the screening process (one step vs two step) and criteria of oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups [IADPSG] vs CarpenterandCoustan). Guidelines with higher AGREE scores usually recommend a one-step OGTT strategy with IADPSG criteria between 24 and 28 gestational weeks, and the majority of these guidelines likely to select evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. CONCLUSIONS:The guidelines of WHO-2013, NICE-2015, American Diabetes Association-2018, Endocrine Society-2013, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada-2016, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics-2015, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-2018, United States Preventive Services Task Force-2014 and IADPSG-2015 are strongly recommended in the present evaluation, according to the AGREE II criteria. Guidelines with higher quality tend to recommend a one-step 75 g OGTT strategy with IADPSG criteria between 24 and 28 gestational weeks.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently remains undiagnosed. Screening of apparently healthy individuals may lead to early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and may prevent or delay the development of related complications.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception. The date of the last search was May 2019 for all databases. We applied no language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials involving adults and children without known diabetes mellitus, conducted over at least three months, that assessed the effect of diabetes screening (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) compared to no diabetes screening.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential relevance and reviewed the full-texts of potentially relevant studies, extracted data, and carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe screened 4651 titles and abstracts identified by the search and assessed 92 full-texts/records for inclusion. We included one cluster-randomised trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which involved 20,184 participants from 33 general practices in Eastern England and assessed the effects of inviting versus not inviting high-risk individuals to screening for diabetes. The diabetes risk score was used to identify high-risk individuals; it comprised variables relating to age, sex, body mass index, and the use of prescribed steroid and anti-hypertensive medication. Twenty-seven practices were randomised to the screening group (11,737 participants actually attending screening) and 5 practices to the no-screening group (4137 participants). In both groups, 36% of participants were women; the average age of participants was 58.2 years in the screening group and 57.9 years in the no-screening group. Almost half of participants in both groups were on antihypertensive medication. The findings from the first phase of this study indicate that screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes did not show a clear difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.25, low-certainty evidence). Screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus showed an HR of 1.26, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.12 (low-certainty evidence) for diabetes-related mortality (based on whether diabetes was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate). Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a subsample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control. The included study did not report on adverse events, incidence of type 2 diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and socioeconomic effects.Authors' conclusionsWe are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality. Evidence was available from one study only. We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening. Furthermore, the included study did not assess all of the outcomes prespecified in the review (diabetes-related morbidity, incidence of type 2 diabetes, health-related quality of life, adverse events, socioeconomic effects).

Dataset Information

Analysis of guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus in an ambulatory population.

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Analysis of guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus in an ambulatory population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets