Cargando…
Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Early detection of pre-diabetes (pre-DM) can prevent DM and related complications. This review examined studies on non-laboratory-based pre-DM risk prediction tools to identify important predictors and evaluate their performance. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL were searched in February 2023. Studie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37046512 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071294 |
_version_ | 1785023545219219456 |
---|---|
author | Cheng, Will Ho-Gi Mi, Yuqi Dong, Weinan Tse, Emily Tsui-Yee Wong, Carlos King-Ho Bedford, Laura Elizabeth Lam, Cindy Lo-Kuen |
author_facet | Cheng, Will Ho-Gi Mi, Yuqi Dong, Weinan Tse, Emily Tsui-Yee Wong, Carlos King-Ho Bedford, Laura Elizabeth Lam, Cindy Lo-Kuen |
author_sort | Cheng, Will Ho-Gi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Early detection of pre-diabetes (pre-DM) can prevent DM and related complications. This review examined studies on non-laboratory-based pre-DM risk prediction tools to identify important predictors and evaluate their performance. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL were searched in February 2023. Studies that developed tools with: (1) pre-DM as a prediction outcome, (2) fasting/post-prandial blood glucose/HbA1c as outcome measures, and (3) non-laboratory predictors only were included. The studies’ quality was assessed using the CASP Clinical Prediction Rule Checklist. Data on pre-DM definitions, predictors, validation methods, performances of the tools were extracted for narrative synthesis. A total of 6398 titles were identified and screened. Twenty-four studies were included with satisfactory quality. Eight studies (33.3%) developed pre-DM risk tools and sixteen studies (66.7%) focused on pre-DM and DM risks. Age, family history of DM, diagnosed hypertension and obesity measured by BMI and/or WC were the most common non-laboratory predictors. Existing tools showed satisfactory internal discrimination (AUROC: 0.68–0.82), sensitivity (0.60–0.89), and specificity (0.50–0.74). Only twelve studies (50.0%) had validated their tools externally, with a variance in the external discrimination (AUROC: 0.31–0.79) and sensitivity (0.31–0.92). Most non-laboratory-based risk tools for pre-DM detection showed satisfactory performance in their study populations. The generalisability of these tools was unclear since most lacked external validation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10093270 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100932702023-04-13 Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review Cheng, Will Ho-Gi Mi, Yuqi Dong, Weinan Tse, Emily Tsui-Yee Wong, Carlos King-Ho Bedford, Laura Elizabeth Lam, Cindy Lo-Kuen Diagnostics (Basel) Systematic Review Early detection of pre-diabetes (pre-DM) can prevent DM and related complications. This review examined studies on non-laboratory-based pre-DM risk prediction tools to identify important predictors and evaluate their performance. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL were searched in February 2023. Studies that developed tools with: (1) pre-DM as a prediction outcome, (2) fasting/post-prandial blood glucose/HbA1c as outcome measures, and (3) non-laboratory predictors only were included. The studies’ quality was assessed using the CASP Clinical Prediction Rule Checklist. Data on pre-DM definitions, predictors, validation methods, performances of the tools were extracted for narrative synthesis. A total of 6398 titles were identified and screened. Twenty-four studies were included with satisfactory quality. Eight studies (33.3%) developed pre-DM risk tools and sixteen studies (66.7%) focused on pre-DM and DM risks. Age, family history of DM, diagnosed hypertension and obesity measured by BMI and/or WC were the most common non-laboratory predictors. Existing tools showed satisfactory internal discrimination (AUROC: 0.68–0.82), sensitivity (0.60–0.89), and specificity (0.50–0.74). Only twelve studies (50.0%) had validated their tools externally, with a variance in the external discrimination (AUROC: 0.31–0.79) and sensitivity (0.31–0.92). Most non-laboratory-based risk tools for pre-DM detection showed satisfactory performance in their study populations. The generalisability of these tools was unclear since most lacked external validation. MDPI 2023-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10093270/ /pubmed/37046512 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071294 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Cheng, Will Ho-Gi Mi, Yuqi Dong, Weinan Tse, Emily Tsui-Yee Wong, Carlos King-Ho Bedford, Laura Elizabeth Lam, Cindy Lo-Kuen Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title | Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Non-Laboratory-Based Risk Prediction Tools for Undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | non-laboratory-based risk prediction tools for undiagnosed pre-diabetes: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37046512 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071294 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chengwillhogi nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT miyuqi nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT dongweinan nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT tseemilytsuiyee nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT wongcarloskingho nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT bedfordlauraelizabeth nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview AT lamcindylokuen nonlaboratorybasedriskpredictiontoolsforundiagnosedprediabetesasystematicreview |