Trial reportPloS one2018
Validation of DIABSCORE in screening for Type 2 Diabetes and prediabetes in Tunisian population.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo perform a validation of DIABSCORE in a sample of Tunisian adults and find out the optimal cut-off point for screening of Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes.
methods225 adults 18-75 years and a subgroup of 138 adults (18-54 years), with undiagnosed T2D from the region of Cap-Bon, Tunisia were included in the present study. The DIABSCORE was calculated based on: age, waist/height ratio, family history of T2D and gestational diabetes. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and areas under curve (AUC) were obtained. The T2D and prediabetes prevalences odds ratios (OR) between patients exposed and not exposed to DIABSCORE≥90 and DIABSCORE≥80, respectively were calculated in both age ranges.
resultsFor screening of T2D the best value was DIABSCORE = 90 with a highest sensitivity (Se), negative predictive value (NPV) and lower negative likelihood ratio in participants aged 18-75 yr (Se = 97%; NPV = 97%) when compared to participants aged 18-54 yr (Se = 95%; NPV = 97%); for prediabetes, the best Se and NPV were for DIABSCORE = 80 in both age groups, but it showed a disbalanced sensitivity-specificity. The ROC curves for T2D showed a similar AUC in both age ranges (AUC = 0.62 and AUC = 0.61 respectively). The ROC curves for prediabetes showed a highest AUC in those aged 18-54 years than the older ones (AUC = 0.62 and AUC = 0.57, respectively). The prevalences OR of T2D for DIABSCORE≥90 was higher than for DIABSCORE≥80 in both age ranges. Nevertheless, the prevalences OR of prediabetes for DIABSCORE≥90 was half of the detected for DIABSCORE≥80 in both age ranges.
conclusionThe DIABSCORE is a simple clinical tool and accurate method in screening for T2D and prediabetes in the adult Tunisian population.
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.