2020
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17238903
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Screening Model for Estimating Undiagnosed Diabetes among People with a Family History of Diabetes Mellitus: A KNHANES-Based Study

Abstract: A screening model for estimating undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (UDM) is important for early medical care. There is minimal research and a serious lack of screening models for people with a family history of diabetes (FHD), especially one which incorporates gender characteristics. Therefore, the primary objective of our study was to develop a screening model for estimating UDM among people with FHD and enable its validation. We used data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, the diabetic cluster defined by insulin resistance as the predominant cause of diabetes showed the greatest risk of progressing to renal complications like chronic kidney disease, macroalbuminuria, or end-stage renal disease within the next decade compared to the other clusters defined by autoimmune diabetes, insulin deficiency diabetes, mild age-related diabetes, and mild obesity-related diabetes [ 11 ]. The importance of cluster analyses has also been highlighted by a study of Ryu et al, who developed a screening model including gender-specific characteristics for the estimation of an undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in high-risk patients for development of diabetes mellitus, namely patients with a positive family history of diabetes [ 16 ]. Additionally, more recently, Nedyalkova et al showed that k -means clustering to detect clinical variables might be useful to stratify type 2 diabetics into distinct subgroups of risk factors [ 17 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, the diabetic cluster defined by insulin resistance as the predominant cause of diabetes showed the greatest risk of progressing to renal complications like chronic kidney disease, macroalbuminuria, or end-stage renal disease within the next decade compared to the other clusters defined by autoimmune diabetes, insulin deficiency diabetes, mild age-related diabetes, and mild obesity-related diabetes [ 11 ]. The importance of cluster analyses has also been highlighted by a study of Ryu et al, who developed a screening model including gender-specific characteristics for the estimation of an undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in high-risk patients for development of diabetes mellitus, namely patients with a positive family history of diabetes [ 16 ]. Additionally, more recently, Nedyalkova et al showed that k -means clustering to detect clinical variables might be useful to stratify type 2 diabetics into distinct subgroups of risk factors [ 17 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is necessary to implement public health campaigns or programs to improve screening test participation in vulnerable populations. Previous studies have also developed simple screening methods for DM for specific populations using risk score models [10,[46][47][48]. We suggest that healthcare providers use the existing screening methods for DM with people at risk of UDM along with public health actions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is composed of three component surveys: a health interview, health examination and nutrition survey. The surveys collect detailed information on socioeconomic status, health behaviors, quality of life, healthcare utilization, anthropometric measures, biochemical profiles using fasting blood serum and urine, measures for dental health, vision, hearing and bone density, X-ray test results food intake and dietary behavior ( 15 , 16 ). For this study, a total of 80,861 participants were screened.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%