Comparative evaluation of Indian Diabetes Risk Score and Finnish Diabetes Risk Score for predicting risk of diabetes mellitus type II: A teaching hospital-based survey in Maharashtra.

CONTEXT: India is currently becoming capital for diabetes mellitus. This significantly increasing incidence of diabetes putting an additional burden on health care in India. Unfortunately, half of diabetic individuals are unknown about their diabetic status. Hence, there is an emergent need of effective screening instrument to identify "diabetes risk" individuals.

AIMS: The aim is to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of Indian Diabetes Risk Score (IDRS) and Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC).

SETTINGS AND

DESIGN

This is retrospective, record-based study of diabetes detection camp organized by a teaching hospital. Out of 780 people attended this camp voluntarily only 763 fulfilled inclusion criteria of the study.

SUBJECTS AND

METHODS

In this camp, pro forma included the World Health Organization STEP guidelines for surveillance of noncommunicable diseases. Included primary sociodemographic characters, physical measurements, and clinical examination. After that followed the random blood glucose estimation of each individual.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Diagnostic accuracy of IDRS and FINDRISC compared by using receiver operative characteristic curve (ROC). Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, positive predictive and negative predictive values were compared. Clinical utility index (CUI) of each score also compared. SPSS version 22, Stata 13, R3.2.9 used.

RESULTS

Out of 763 individuals, 38 were new diabetics. By IDRS 347 and by FINDRISC 96 people were included in high-risk category for diabetes. Odds ratio for high-risk people in FINDRISC for getting affected by diabetes was 10.70. Similarly, it was 4.79 for IDRS. Area under curves of ROCs of both scores were indifferent (P = 0.98). Sensitivity and specificity of IDRS was 78.95% and 56.14%; whereas for FINDRISC it was 55.26% and 89.66%, respectively. CUI was excellent (0.86) for FINDRISC while IDRS it was "satisfactory" (0.54). Bland-Altman plot and Cohen's Kappa suggested fair agreement between these score in measuring diabetes risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of FINDRISC is fairly good than IDRS.