ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2023
External validation of the UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) risk engine in patients with type 2 diabetes identified in the national diabetes program in Iran.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2023. 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.
- Prognostic Models for Predicting Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular diseases are the first leading cause of mortality in the world. Practical guidelines recommend an accurate estimation of the risk of these events for effective treatment and care. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) has a risk engine for predicting CHD risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, but in some countries, it has been shown that the risk of CHD is poorly estimated. Hence, we assessed the external validity of the UKPDS risk engine in patients with type 2 diabetes identified in the national diabetes program in Iran. Methods: The cohort included 853 patients with type 2diabetes identified between March 21, 2007, and March 20, 2018 in Lorestan province of Iran. Patients were followed for the incidence of CHD. The performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was examined using the c-statistic and calibration was assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistic (HLχ2) test and a calibration plot was depicted to show the predicted risks versus observed ones. Results: During 7464.5 person-years of follow-up 170 first Coronary heart disease occurred. The median follow-up was 8.6 years. The UKPDS risk engine showed moderate discrimination for CHD (c-statistic was 0.72 for 10-year risk) and the calibration of the UKPDS risk engine was poor (HLχ2 = 69.9, p < 0.001) and the UKPDS risk engine78% overestimated the risk of heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes identified in the national diabetes program in Iran. Conclusion: This study shows that the ability of the UKPDS Risk Engine to discriminate patients who developed CHD events from those who did not; was moderate and the ability of the risk prediction model to accurately predict the absolute risk of CHD (calibration) was poor and it overestimated the CHD risk. To improve the prediction of CHD in patients with type 2 diabetes, this model should be updated in the Iranian diabetic 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.