ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at 'high risk': a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of FINDRISC and IDRS in screening for type 2 diabetes risk among Yemeni university students.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of a Multivariable Prediction Model to Identify Nondiabetic Hyperglycemia and Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score (DDS).Journal of dental research · 2023Article
- Understanding the risk of developing weight-related complications associated with different body mass index categories: a systematic review.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2022Review
- Lifetime risk of cardiovascular-renal disease in type 2 diabetes: a population-based study in 473,399 individuals.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Using a Diabetes Risk Score to Identify Patients Without Diabetes at Risk for New Hyperglycemia in the Hospital.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2021Article
- Risk Prediction of the Diabetes Missing Million: Identifying Individuals at High Risk of Diabetes and Related Complications.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021Review
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus prevalence and risk scores in treated PLWHIV: a cross-sectional preliminary study.BMC research notes · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual.
aimThis study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.
methodRetrospective analysis of 676 individuals (389 females and 287 males) who participated in a workplace-based diabetes risk-assessment initiative. Ten-year risk of type 2 diabetes was predicted using the validated QDiabetes(®), Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA), FINDRISC, and Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) algorithms.
resultsDifferences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following retrospective analysis of individuals. CRS categorised the highest proportion (13.6%) of individuals at 'high risk' followed by FINDRISC (6.6%), QDiabetes (6.1%), and, finally, the LRA was the most conservative risk tool (3.1%). Following further analysis by sex, over one-quarter of males were categorised at high risk using CRS (25.4%), whereas a greater percentage of females were categorised as high risk using FINDRISC (7.8%).
conclusionThe adoption of a different valid risk-assessment tool can alter the predicted risk of an individual and caution should be used to identify those individuals who really are at high risk of type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.