Aim To summarize the evidence on diabetes risk scores for Latin American populations. Methods A systematic review was conducted (CRD42019122306) looking for diagnostic and prognostic models for type 2 diabetes mellitus among randomly selected adults in Latin America. Five databases (LILACS, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health) were searched. type 2 diabetes mellitus was defined using at least one blood biomarker and the reports needed to include information on the development and/or validation of a multivariable regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST guidelines. Results Of the 1500 reports identified, 11 were studied in detail and five were included in the qualitative analysis. Two reports were from Mexico, two from Peru and one from Brazil. The number of diabetes cases varied from 48 to 207 in the derivations models, and between 29 and 582 in the validation models. The most common predictors were age, waist circumference and family history of diabetes, and only one study used oral glucose tolerance test as the outcome. The discrimination performance across studies was ~ 70% (range: 66–72%) as per the area under the receiving‐operator curve, the highest metric was always the negative predictive value. Sensitivity was always higher than specificity. Conclusion There is no evidence to support the use of one risk score throughout Latin America. The development, validation and implementation of risk scores should be a research and public health priority in Latin America to improve type 2 diabetes mellitus screening and prevention.
This review aimed to assess whether the FINDRISC, a risk score for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), has been externally validated in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We conducted a systematic review following the CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) framework. Reports were included if they validated or re-estimated the FINDRISC in population-based samples, health facilities or administrative data. Reports were excluded if they only studied patients or at-risk individuals. The search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and LILACS. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. From 1582 titles and abstracts, 4 (n=7502) reports were included for qualitative summary. All reports were from South America; there were slightly more women, and the mean age ranged from 29.5 to 49.7 years. Undiagnosed T2DM prevalence ranged from 2.6% to 5.1%. None of the studies conducted an independent external validation of the FINDRISC; conversely, they used the same (or very similar) predictors to fit a new model. None of the studies reported calibration metrics. The area under the receiver operating curve was consistently above 65.0%. All studies had high risk of bias. There has not been any external validation of the FINDRISC model in LAC. Selected reports re-estimated the FINDRISC, although they have several methodological limitations. There is a need for big data to develop—or improve—T2DM diagnostic and prognostic models in LAC. This could benefit T2DM screening and early diagnosis.
Background: The accuracy of urine dipsticks to detect increased albuminuria is uncertain. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks for detecting albuminuria. Methods: A systematic review of studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick testing for detecting albuminuria has been conducted (using as reference standard the albuminuria in a 24-hour sample or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio) in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The risk of bias of the included studies has been assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Whenever possible, we performed meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity. The certainty of the evidence has also been assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Results: A total of 14 studies have been included in this review, having assessed all albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) as assessed standard. Each study used different dipstick types. The resulting pooled sensitivity and specificity for each cutoff point were as follows: for ACR >30 mg/g (13 studies): 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.87) and 0.88 (0.83-0.91); for ACR 30-300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.72 (0.68-0.77) and 0.82 (0.76-0.89); and for ACR >300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.84 (0.71-0.90) and 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. An overall high risk of bias, an important heterogeneity in all pooled analysis, and a very low certainty of the evidence have been found. Conclusions: Pooled sensitivity and specificity of urine dipsticks have been calculated for different ACR cutoff points. However, the dipstick types differed across studies, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Thus, further well-designed studies are needed to reach more confident estimates and to assess accuracy differences across dipstick types. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019124637).
Objetivo: Evaluar la mortalidad en pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA que reciben tratamiento antirretroviral (TAR) en un hospital público de Perú. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional de cohorte retrospectivo de los pacientes con diagnóstico de infección por VIH/SIDA que recibieron tratamiento antirretroviral. Resultados: De 428 pacientes estudiados, la media de edad fue 37 años y la media del recuento de CD4 al inicio del TAR en el grupo de fallecidos fue 87,2 cels/uL frente a 153,2 cels/uL en el grupo de vivos, fallecieron 66 pacientes (15,4%) después de iniciar TAR. La mayoría (48,5%) de estos pacientes tenían recuento de CD4 menor de 200 cel/uL, 59,1% desarrollaron infección oportunista y 16,7% cambiaron de esquema antirretroviral en algún momento del TAR. La mortalidad durante los primeros 3 meses de TAR fue 32,6%; el análisis con múltiples variables se encontró asociación con tener CD4 mayor de 100 cel/mL (HR:0,57; IC95%: 0,29-1,11), la presencia de infección oportunista (HR: 1,1; IC95% 1,06-1,16) y tener una alta carga viral (HR 1,17; IC95%:1,07-1,48). La probabilidad de sobrevida de los pacientes con CD4 menor de 100 cel/mL a los 8 años en TAR es 68%. Conclusiones: El mayor número de muertes de los pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA ocurre durante los tres primeros meses de TAR y está asociado a un diagnóstico tardío (alta carga viral, bajo CD4 y presencia de enfermedades oportunistas). Sugerimos la implementación de terapia supervisada durante los primeros meses de TAR en pacientes con CD4 menor de 100 cel/mL, para identificar en forma temprana las infecciones oportunistas.
Introducción: El Tratamiento antirretroviral (TAR) suprime la replicación viral del VIH aun así ocurre las infecciones oportunistas (IOs) post inicio del TAR. Objetivo: Identificar y comparar las infecciones oportunistas (IOs) en pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA que inician TAR en un hospital público de Perú. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional de cohorte prospectivo de 8 años de seguimiento a los pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA que iniciaron TAR. Resultados: De 427 pacientes estudiados, 111 (26%) presentaron por lo menos una infección oportunista. Los pacientes que presentaron IOs tuvieron una media de CD4: 107,5 células /ml, mientras que este conteo fue más alto en los pacientes sin coinfección (p<0,01), la carga viral no está relacionada con la presencia de IOs (p = 0,48). Las infecciones más frecuentes fueron: tuberculosis (43,2%), diarrea crónica (29,7%), candidiasis (10,8%), toxoplasmosis, citomegalovirus (4,5%) y Pneumocistosis (3,6%). Conclusiones: A pesar de los avances en el manejo de la infección por VIH/SIDA, las IOs continúan siendo la principal causa de hospitalización y la tuberculosis es el factor más importante asociado a mortalidad.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.