Application of Indian Diabetic Risk Score (IDRS) and Community Based Assessment Checklist (CBAC) as Metabolic Syndrome prediction tools

BACKGROUND: Indian Diabetic Risk Score (IDRS) and Community Based Assessment Checklist (CBAC) are easy, inexpensive, and non-invasive tools that can be used to screen people for Metabolic Syndrome (Met S). The study aimed to explore the prediction abilities of IDRS and CBAC tools for Met S. METHODS: All the people of age ≥30 years attending the selected rural health centers were screened for Met S. We used the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria to diagnose the Met S. ROC curves were plotted by taking Met S as dependent variables, and IDRS and CBAC scores as independent/prediction variables. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), Positive and Negative Predictive Value (PPV and NPV), Likelihood Ratio for positive and negative tests (LR(+) and LR(-)), Accuracy, and Youden’s index were calculated for different IDRS and CBAC scores cut-offs. Data were analyzed using SPSS v.23 and MedCalc v.20.111. RESULTS: A total of 942 participants underwent the screening process. Out of them, 59 (6.4%, 95% CI: 4.90–8.12) were found to have Met S. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for IDRS in predicting Met S was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.67–0.79), with 76.3% (64.0%-85.3%) sensitivity and 54.6% (51.2%-57.8%) specificity at the cut-off of ≥60. For the CBAC score, AUC was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.66–0.79), with 84.7% (73.5%-91.7%) sensitivity and 48.8% (45.5%-52.1%) specificity at the cut-off of ≥4 (Youden’s Index, 2.1). The AUCs of both parameters (IDRS and CBAC scores) were statistically significant. There was no significant difference (p = 0.833) in the AUCs of IDRS and CBAC [Difference between AUC = 0.00571]. CONCLUSION: The current study provides scientific evidence that both IDRS and CBAC have almost 73% prediction ability for Met S. Though CBAC holds relatively greater sensitivity (84.7%) than IDRS (76.3%), the difference in prediction abilities is not statistically significant. The prediction abilities of IDRS and CBAC found in this study are inadequate to qualify as Met S screening tools.