ArticleDiabetes care2025
Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record-Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice.
Article in Diabetes care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe derive and validate D-RISK, an electronic health record (EHR)-driven risk score to optimize and facilitate screening for undiagnosed dysglycemia (prediabetes plus diabetes) in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe used retrospective EHR data (derivation sample) and a prospective diabetes screening study (validation sample) to develop D-RISK. Logistic regression with backward selection was used to predict dysglycemia (HbA1c ≥5.7%) using diabetes risk factors consistently captured in structured EHR data. Model coefficients were converted to a points-based risk score. We report discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity and compare D-RISK to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test and the ADA and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines.
resultsThe derivation cohort included 11,387 patients (mean age 48 years; 65% female; 42% Hispanic; 32% non-Hispanic Black; mean BMI 32; 29% with hypertension). D-RISK included age, race, BMI, hypertension, and random glucose. The area under curve (AUC) for the risk score was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76). In the validation screening study (n = 519), the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) which was better than the ADA and USPSTF diabetes screening guidelines (AUC = 0.52 and AUC = 0.58, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Discrimination was similar to the ADA risk test (AUC = 0.67) using patient-reported data to supplement EHR data, although D-RISK was more sensitive (75% vs. 61%) at the recommended screening thresholds.
conclusionsDesigned for use in EHR, D-RISK performs better than commonly used screening guidelines and risk scores and may help detect undiagnosed cases of dysglycemia in clinical practice.
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.