Dataset Information

Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Asgari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013.Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively.Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has increased worldwide, including in Saudi Arabia.ObjectiveTo systematically review the available literature and assess the pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia between 2000 and 2020.MethodsObservational studies that reported quantitative estimates of the prevalence of T2DM as their main outcome, included the general population of Saudi Arabia, and were published between 2000-2020 and in English were retrieved using three electronic databases (namely, CINAHL, Medline via PubMed, and Web of Science). Retrieved studies were screened, and relevant data were extracted. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal guideline was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate the prevalence of T2DM.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis (total pooled population: 258,283). The overall pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia was 16.4% (95% CI: 11.6-17.5). However, there was heterogeneity in the results of the studies [I2 = 99.31%, P < 0.0001] and the summary values varied from 3.18% (95% CI: 1.46-5.95) to 94.34% (95% CI: 89.53-97.38). Although the prevalence of T2DM by age varied across studies, in most studies, it was higher among the older age groups. In addition, the prevalence of diabetes widely varied across the different geographical regions of Saudi Arabia.ConclusionsThis is the first meta-analysis that determined the pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia, and it revealed a high prevalence over the past two decades. However, owing to data collection inconsistencies in the identified studies, neither the modifiable (such as obesity, educational status, emotional support, etc.) nor the non-modifiable (such as gender and age) risk factors of T2DM could be determined, thereby indicating the need for a nationally collective effort in determining these factors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort.Data sourcesSystematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes.DesignPerformance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test).The validation study was a prospective cohort study, with a case cohort study in a random subcohort.SettingModels were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL).Participants38,379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort.Outcome measureIncident type 2 diabetes.ResultsThe review identified 16 studies containing 25 prediction models. We considered 12 models as basic because they were based on variables that can be assessed non-invasively and 13 models as extended because they additionally included conventional biomarkers such as glucose concentration. During a median follow-up of 10.2 years there were 924 cases in the full EPIC-NL cohort and 79 in the random subcohort. The C statistic for the basic models ranged from 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.75) to 0.84 (0.82 to 0.85) for risk at 7.5 years. For prediction models including biomarkers the C statistic ranged from 0.81 (0.80 to 0.83) to 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94). Most prediction models overestimated the observed risk of diabetes, particularly at higher observed risks. After adjustment for differences in incidence of diabetes, calibration improved considerably.ConclusionsMost basic prediction models can identify people at high risk of developing diabetes in a time frame of five to 10 years. Models including biomarkers classified cases slightly better than basic ones. Most models overestimated the actual risk of diabetes. Existing prediction models therefore perform well to identify those at high risk, but cannot sufficiently quantify actual risk of future diabetes.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergence delirium (ED) occurs in approximately 25% of paediatric general anaesthetics and has significant adverse effects. The goal of the current systematic review was to identify the existing literature investigating performance of predictive models for the development of paediatric ED following general anaesthesia and to determine their usability.DesignSystematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework.Data sourcesMedline (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses International through 17 November 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll randomised controlled trials and cohort studies investigating predictive models for the development of ED in children undergoing general anaesthesia.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing title, abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters, details of anaesthetics and performance characteristics of the predictive scores for ED. Evidence quality and predictive score usability were assessed according to the PROBAST framework.ResultsThe current systematic review yielded 9242 abstracts, of which only one study detailing the development and validation of the Emergence Agitation Risk Scale (EARS) met the inclusion criteria. EARS had good discrimination with c-index of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.89). Calibration showed a non-significant Homer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p=0.97). Although the EARS demonstrated low concern of applicability, the high risk of bias compromised the overall usability of this model.ConclusionsThe current systematic review concluded that EARS has good discrimination performance but low usability to predict ED in a paediatric population. Further research is warranted to develop novel models for the prediction of ED in paediatric anaesthesia.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141950.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate current risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes and inform selection and implementation of these in practice.DesignSystematic 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 sourcesMedline, 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 extractionData 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.Results8864 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.ConclusionMuch 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.