ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Driving Type 2 Diabetes Risk Scores into Clinical Practice: Performance Analysis in Hospital Settings.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Variables for Use in Pediatric Obesity Risk Score Development in Demographically and Racially Diverse United States Cohorts.The Journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Integration of Risk Scores and Integration Capability in Electronic Patient Records.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Machine learning for diabetes clinical decision support: a review.Advances in computational intelligence · 2022Review
- Association between oral health-related quality of life and general health among dental patients: a cross-sectional study.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2021Article
- Dementia Risk Scores and Their Role in the Implementation of Risk Reduction Guidelines.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Addressing practical issues of predictive models translation into everyday practice and public health management: a combined model to predict the risk of type 2 diabetes improves incidence prediction and reduces the prevalence of missing risk predictions.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
- Agreement between Type 2 Diabetes Risk Scales in a Caucasian Population: A Systematic Review and Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Use of a K-nearest neighbors model to predict the development of type 2 diabetes within 2 years in an obese, hypertensive population.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
- Body Weight Fluctuation as a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes: Results from a Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Diabetes: Oral Health Related Quality of Life and Oral Alterations.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Simplified, Low-Cost Method on Glucose Tolerance Testing in High-Risk Group of Diabetes, Explored by Simulation of Diagnosis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic health records and computational modelling have paved the way for the development of Type 2 Diabetes risk scores to identify subjects at high risk. Unfortunately, few risk scores have been externally validated, and their performance can be compromised when routine clinical data is used. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of well-established risk scores for Type 2 Diabetes using routinely collected clinical data and to quantify their impact on the decision making process of endocrinologists. We tested six risk models that have been validated in external cohorts, as opposed to model development, on electronic health records collected from 2008-2015 from a population of 10,730 subjects. Unavailable or missing data in electronic health records was imputed using an existing validated Bayesian Network. Risk scores were assessed on the basis of statistical performance to differentiate between subjects who developed diabetes and those who did not. Eight endocrinologists provided clinical recommendations based on the risk score output. Due to inaccuracies and discrepancies regarding the exact date of Type 2 Diabetes onset, 76 subjects from the initial population were eligible for the study. Risk scores were useful for identifying subjects who developed diabetes (Framingham risk score yielded a c-statistic of 85%), however, our findings suggest that electronic health records are not prepared to massively use this type of risk scores. Use of a Bayesian Network was key for completion of the risk estimation and did not affect the risk score calculation (
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.