Ayensa-Vazquez Jose Angel, Leiva Alfonso, Tauler Pedro, López-González Angel Arturo, Aguiló Antoni, Tomás-Salvá Matías, Bennasar-Veny Miquel
Department of Nursing, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Primary Care Research Unit, Balearic Islands Health Service, 07002 Palma, Spain.
J Clin Med. 2020 May 20;9(5):1546. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051546.
Early detection of people with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) is an important public health concern. Several predictive equations for T2D have been proposed but most of them have not been externally validated and their performance could be compromised when clinical data is used. Clinical practice guidelines increasingly incorporate T2D risk prediction models as they support clinical decision making. The aims of this study were to systematically review prediction scores for T2D and to analyze the agreement between these risk scores in a large cross-sectional study of white western European workers. A systematic review of the PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases and a cross-sectional study in 59,042 Spanish workers was performed. Agreement between scores classifying participants as high risk was evaluated using the kappa statistic. The systematic review of 26 predictive models highlights a great heterogeneity in the risk predictors; there is a poor level of reporting, and most of them have not been externally validated. Regarding the agreement between risk scores, the DETECT-2 risk score scale classified 14.1% of subjects as high-risk, FINDRISC score 20.8%, Cambridge score 19.8%, the AUSDRISK score 26.4%, the EGAD study 30.3%, the Hisayama study 30.9%, the ARIC score 6.3%, and the ITD score 3.1%. The lowest agreement was observed between the ITD and the NUDS study derived score (κ = 0.067). Differences in diabetes incidence, prevalence, and weight of risk factors seem to account for the agreement differences between scores. A better agreement between the multi-ethnic derivate score (DETECT-2) and European derivate scores was observed. Risk models should be designed using more easily identifiable and reproducible health data in clinical practice.
早期发现未确诊的2型糖尿病(T2D)患者是一个重要的公共卫生问题。已经提出了几种T2D预测方程,但其中大多数尚未经过外部验证,并且在使用临床数据时其性能可能会受到影响。临床实践指南越来越多地纳入T2D风险预测模型,因为它们有助于临床决策。本研究的目的是系统回顾T2D的预测评分,并在一项针对西欧白人工人的大型横断面研究中分析这些风险评分之间的一致性。对PubMed、CINAHL和EMBASE数据库进行了系统回顾,并对59042名西班牙工人进行了横断面研究。使用kappa统计量评估将参与者分类为高风险的评分之间的一致性。对26种预测模型的系统回顾突出了风险预测因素中的巨大异质性;报告水平较低,并且大多数模型尚未经过外部验证。关于风险评分之间的一致性,DETECT-2风险评分量表将14.1%的受试者分类为高风险,FINDRISC评分为20.8%,剑桥评分为19.8%,AUSDRISK评分为26.4%,EGAD研究为30.3%,久山研究为30.9%,ARIC评分为6.3%,ITD评分为3.1%。在ITD和NUDS研究得出的评分之间观察到最低的一致性(κ = 0.067)。糖尿病发病率、患病率和风险因素权重的差异似乎解释了评分之间的一致性差异。观察到多民族衍生评分(DETECT-2)与欧洲衍生评分之间有更好的一致性。在临床实践中,应使用更容易识别和可重复的健康数据来设计风险模型。