Cargando…
Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study
Objective To identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort. Data sources Systematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22990994 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5900 |
_version_ | 1782243809529167872 |
---|---|
author | Abbasi, Ali Peelen, Linda M Corpeleijn, Eva van der Schouw, Yvonne T Stolk, Ronald P Spijkerman, Annemieke M W van der A, Daphne L Moons, Karel G M Navis, Gerjan Bakker, Stephan J L Beulens, Joline W J |
author_facet | Abbasi, Ali Peelen, Linda M Corpeleijn, Eva van der Schouw, Yvonne T Stolk, Ronald P Spijkerman, Annemieke M W van der A, Daphne L Moons, Karel G M Navis, Gerjan Bakker, Stephan J L Beulens, Joline W J |
author_sort | Abbasi, Ali |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective To identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort. Data sources Systematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes. Design Performance 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. Setting Models were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL). Participants 38 379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort. Outcome measure Incident type 2 diabetes. Results The 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. Conclusions Most 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3445426 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34454262012-09-19 Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study Abbasi, Ali Peelen, Linda M Corpeleijn, Eva van der Schouw, Yvonne T Stolk, Ronald P Spijkerman, Annemieke M W van der A, Daphne L Moons, Karel G M Navis, Gerjan Bakker, Stephan J L Beulens, Joline W J BMJ Research Objective To identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort. Data sources Systematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes. Design Performance 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. Setting Models were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL). Participants 38 379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort. Outcome measure Incident type 2 diabetes. Results The 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. Conclusions Most 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. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2012-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3445426/ /pubmed/22990994 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5900 Text en © Abbasi et al 2012 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode. |
spellingShingle | Research Abbasi, Ali Peelen, Linda M Corpeleijn, Eva van der Schouw, Yvonne T Stolk, Ronald P Spijkerman, Annemieke M W van der A, Daphne L Moons, Karel G M Navis, Gerjan Bakker, Stephan J L Beulens, Joline W J Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title | Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title_full | Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title_fullStr | Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title_short | Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
title_sort | prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22990994 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5900 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abbasiali predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT peelenlindam predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT corpeleijneva predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT vanderschouwyvonnet predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT stolkronaldp predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT spijkermanannemiekemw predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT vanderadaphnel predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT moonskarelgm predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT navisgerjan predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT bakkerstephanjl predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy AT beulensjolinewj predictionmodelsforriskofdevelopingtype2diabetessystematicliteraturesearchandindependentexternalvalidationstudy |