Cargando…
Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction mode...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Kowsar
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34567135 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206 |
_version_ | 1784570315239587840 |
---|---|
author | Asgari, Samaneh Khalili, Davood Hosseinpanah, Farhad Hadaegh, Farzad |
author_facet | Asgari, Samaneh Khalili, Davood Hosseinpanah, Farhad Hadaegh, Farzad |
author_sort | Asgari, Samaneh |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST). DATA SOURCES: Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8453657 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Kowsar |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84536572021-09-24 Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Asgari, Samaneh Khalili, Davood Hosseinpanah, Farhad Hadaegh, Farzad Int J Endocrinol Metab Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST). DATA SOURCES: Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models. Kowsar 2021-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8453657/ /pubmed/34567135 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206 Text en Copyright © 2021, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Asgari, Samaneh Khalili, Davood Hosseinpanah, Farhad Hadaegh, Farzad Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title | Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title_full | Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title_fullStr | Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title_short | Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies |
title_sort | prediction models for type 2 diabetes risk in the general population: a systematic review of observational studies |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34567135 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT asgarisamaneh predictionmodelsfortype2diabetesriskinthegeneralpopulationasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies AT khalilidavood predictionmodelsfortype2diabetesriskinthegeneralpopulationasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies AT hosseinpanahfarhad predictionmodelsfortype2diabetesriskinthegeneralpopulationasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies AT hadaeghfarzad predictionmodelsfortype2diabetesriskinthegeneralpopulationasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies |