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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Asgari, Samaneh, Khalili, Davood, Hosseinpanah, Farhad, Hadaegh, Farzad
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