Dataset Information

Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate current risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes and inform selection and implementation of these in practice.

Design

Systematic review using standard (quantitative) and realist (mainly qualitative) methodology. Inclusion criteria Papers in any language describing the development or external validation, or both, of models and scores to predict the risk of an adult developing type 2 diabetes.

Data sources

Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched. Included studies were citation tracked in Google Scholar to identify follow-on studies of usability or impact.

Data extraction

Data were extracted on statistical properties of models, details of internal or external validation, and use of risk scores beyond the studies that developed them. Quantitative data were tabulated to compare model components and statistical properties. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to identify mechanisms by which use of the risk model or score might improve patient outcomes.

Results

8864 titles were scanned, 115 full text papers considered, and 43 papers included in the final sample. These described the prospective development or validation, or both, of 145 risk prediction models and scores, 94 of which were studied in detail here. They had been tested on 6.88 million participants followed for up to 28 years. Heterogeneity of primary studies precluded meta-analysis. Some but not all risk models or scores had robust statistical properties (for example, good discrimination and calibration) and had been externally validated on a different population. Genetic markers added nothing to models over clinical and sociodemographic factors. Most authors described their score as "simple" or "easily implemented," although few were specific about the intended users and under what circumstances. Ten mechanisms were identified by which measuring diabetes risk might improve outcomes. Follow-on studies that applied a risk score as part of an intervention aimed at reducing actual risk in people were sparse.

Conclusion

Much work has been done to develop diabetes risk models and scores, but most are rarely used because they require tests not routinely available or they were developed without a specific user or clear use in mind. Encouragingly, recent research has begun to tackle usability and the impact of diabetes risk scores. Two promising areas for further research are interventions that prompt lay people to check their own diabetes risk and use of risk scores on population datasets to identify high risk "hotspots" for targeted public health interventions.

SUBMITTER: Noble D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3225074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the disease decision model plays a vital role in supporting decision-making. Currently, there is no comprehensive summary and assessment of the existing decision models for T2DM. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of published decision models for T2DM. We also discuss which models are suitable for different study demands.Materials and methodsFour databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were electronically searched for papers published from inception to August 2020. Search terms were: "Diabetes-Mellitus, Type 2", "cost-utility", "quality-of-life", and "decision model". Reference lists of the included studies were manually searched. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If there was insufficient information to include or exclude a study, then a full-text version was sought. The extracted information included basic information, study details, population characteristics, basic modeling methodologies, model structure, and data inputs for the included applications, model outcomes, model validation, and uncertainty.ResultsFourteen unique decision models for T2DM were identified. Markov chains and risk equations were utilized by four and three models, respectively. Three models utilized both. Except for the Archimedes model, all other models (n = 13) implemented an annual cycle length. The time horizon of most models was flexible. Fourteen models had differences in the division of health states. Ten models emphasized macrovascular and microvascular complications. Six models included adverse events. Majority of the models (n = 11) were patient-level simulation models. Eleven models simulated annual changes in risk factors (body mass index, glycemia, HbA1c, blood pressure (systolic and/or diastolic), and lipids (total cholesterol and/or high-density lipoprotein)). All models reported the main data sources used to develop health states of complications. Most models (n = 11) could deal with the uncertainty of models, which were described in varying levels of detail in the primary studies. Eleven studies reported that one or more validation checks were performed.ConclusionsThe existing decision models for T2DM are heterogeneous in terms of the level of detail in the classification of health states. Thus, more attention should be focused on balancing the desired level of complexity against the required level of transparency in the development of T2DM decision models.

Project description:ObjectivesThis 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 sourcesBoth PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.Study selectionArticles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.Data extractionFor each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.