Screening models for undiagnosed diabetes in Mexican adults using clinical and self-reported information

Félix‐Martínez, Gerardo J.; Godínez‐Fernández, J. Rafael

doi:10.1016/j.endien.2018.11.005

Cited by 4 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2018, Félix‐Martinez and Godínez‐Fernández derived and validated two models using cross‐sectional data collected in 2006 and 2012, i.e. they provided estimates for four models (two derivations and two validations) . In 2010, Guerrero‐Romero and Rodríguez‐Morán derived a model using cross‐sectional data and validated it in prospective data, i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the five reports studied people in Peru , two studied Mexicans , and one was conducted in Brazil . The oldest analysed data was collected in 1996 , and the remainder of the studies used data collected after 2000 . The mean age of the participants in the derivation models ranged from 42 to 50 years, and the proportion of men varied from 38% to 51% .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The oldest analysed data was collected in 1996 , and the remainder of the studies used data collected after 2000 . The mean age of the participants in the derivation models ranged from 42 to 50 years, and the proportion of men varied from 38% to 51% . The mean age of people analysed in the validation models ranged from 40 to 55 years, and the proportion of men ranged from 25% to 49% (Appendix ) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sample size analysed to derive the diagnostic models ranged from 711 to 6995 people , and from 438 to 28 913 for the validation models. The number of diabetes cases varied greatly in the derivation models, from 48 to 207 , with only two derivations models having ≥ 100 events; the equivalent numbers in the validation models were 29 and 582 , with two derivation models having ≥ 100 events. Of note, this information (number of outcome events or diabetes cases) could not be extracted from Guerrero‐Romero and Rodríguez‐Morán .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk scores for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Latin America: a systematic review of population‐based studies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%