Development and multi-cohort validation of a clinical score for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Détails

Ressource 1Télécharger: PLOS.pdf (738.16 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_53596A898582
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Development and multi-cohort validation of a clinical score for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Périodique
PloS one
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Kraege V., Vollenweider P., Waeber G., Sharp S.J., Vallejo M., Infante O., Mirjalili M.R., Ezoddini-Ardakani F., Mozaffari-Khosravi H., Lotfi M.H., Mirzaei M., Méan M. (co-dernier), Marques-Vidal P. (co-dernier)
ISSN
1932-6203 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1932-6203
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2019
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
14
Numéro
10
Pages
e0218933
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
Many countries lack resources to identify patients at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes mellitus (diabetes). We aimed to develop and validate a diabetes risk score based on easily accessible clinical data.
Prospective study including 5277 participants (55.0% women, 51.8±10.5 years) free of diabetes at baseline. Comparison with two other published diabetes risk scores (Balkau and Kahn clinical, respectively 5 and 8 variables) and validation on three cohorts (Europe, Iran and Mexico) was performed.
After a mean follow-up of 10.9 years, 405 participants (7.7%) developed diabetes. Our score was based on age, gender, waist circumference, diabetes family history, hypertension and physical activity. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.772 for our score, vs. 0.748 (p<0.001) and 0.774 (p = 0.668) for the other two. Using a 13-point threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (95% CI) of our score were 60.5 (55.5-65.3), 77.1 (75.8-78.2), 18.0 (16.0-20.1) and 95.9 (95.2-96.5) percent, respectively. Our score performed equally well or better than the other two in the Iranian [AUC 0.542 vs. 0.564 (p = 0.476) and 0.513 (p = 0.300)] and Mexican [AUC 0.791 vs. 0.672 (p<0.001) and 0.778 (p = 0.575)] cohorts. In the European cohort, it performed similarly to the Balkau score but worse than the Kahn clinical [AUC 0.788 vs. 0.793 (p = 0.091) and 0.816 (p<0.001)]. Diagnostic capacity of our score was better than the Balkau score and comparable to the Kahn clinical one.
Our clinically-based score shows encouraging results compared to other scores and can be used in populations with differing diabetes prevalence.
Pubmed
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
10/10/2019 21:45
Dernière modification de la notice
31/07/2020 7:08
Données d'usage