The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at 'high risk': a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gray Benjamin J, Bracken Richard M, Turner Daniel, Morgan Kerry, Thomas Michael, Williams Sally P, Williams Meurig, Rice Sam, Stephens Jeffrey W, Prosiect Sir Gâr Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Use of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual.
AIM: This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.
METHOD: Retrospective analysis of 676 individuals (389 females and 287 males) who participated in a workplace-based diabetes risk-assessment initiative. Ten-year risk of type 2 diabetes was predicted using the validated QDiabetes(®), Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA), FINDRISC, and Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) algorithms.
RESULTS: Differences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following retrospective analysis of individuals. CRS categorised the highest proportion (13.6%) of individuals at 'high risk' followed by FINDRISC (6.6%), QDiabetes (6.1%), and, finally, the LRA was the most conservative risk tool (3.1%). Following further analysis by sex, over one-quarter of males were categorised at high risk using CRS (25.4%), whereas a greater percentage of females were categorised as high risk using FINDRISC (7.8%).
CONCLUSION: The adoption of a different valid risk-assessment tool can alter the predicted risk of an individual and caution should be used to identify those individuals who really are at high risk of type 2 diabetes.
AIM: This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.
METHOD: Retrospective analysis of 676 individuals (389 females and 287 males) who participated in a workplace-based diabetes risk-assessment initiative. Ten-year risk of type 2 diabetes was predicted using the validated QDiabetes(®), Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA), FINDRISC, and Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) algorithms.
RESULTS: Differences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following retrospective analysis of individuals. CRS categorised the highest proportion (13.6%) of individuals at 'high risk' followed by FINDRISC (6.6%), QDiabetes (6.1%), and, finally, the LRA was the most conservative risk tool (3.1%). Following further analysis by sex, over one-quarter of males were categorised at high risk using CRS (25.4%), whereas a greater percentage of females were categorised as high risk using FINDRISC (7.8%).
CONCLUSION: The adoption of a different valid risk-assessment tool can alter the predicted risk of an individual and caution should be used to identify those individuals who really are at high risk of type 2 diabetes.