Comparison of screening scores for diabetes and prediabetes

Eduard Poltavskiy, Dae Jung Kim, Heejung Bang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. Methods Adult participants (N = 9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009–12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. Results Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC = 0.77 for ADA and 0.73–0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72–0.74 and 0.70–0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. Conclusions Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)146-153
Number of pages8
JournalDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Volume118
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Prediabetic State
Diabetes Mellitus
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Nutrition Surveys
Health Education
LDL Cholesterol
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
HDL Cholesterol
Area Under Curve
Life Style
Logistic Models
Education

Keywords

  • ADA
  • CDC
  • Prediabetes
  • Risk assessment
  • Risk score
  • Screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Medicine(all)
  • Endocrinology

Cite this

Comparison of screening scores for diabetes and prediabetes. / Poltavskiy, Eduard; Kim, Dae Jung; Bang, Heejung.

In: Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Vol. 118, 01.08.2016, p. 146-153.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0e2c6171a9c14e61a29879f22e109ff6,
title = "Comparison of screening scores for diabetes and prediabetes",
abstract = "Aims There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. Methods Adult participants (N = 9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009–12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. Results Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC = 0.77 for ADA and 0.73–0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72–0.74 and 0.70–0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. Conclusions Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.",
keywords = "ADA, CDC, Prediabetes, Risk assessment, Risk score, Screening",
author = "Eduard Poltavskiy and Kim, {Dae Jung} and Heejung Bang",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.diabres.2016.06.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "118",
pages = "146--153",
journal = "Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice",
issn = "0168-8227",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of screening scores for diabetes and prediabetes

AU - Poltavskiy, Eduard

AU - Kim, Dae Jung

AU - Bang, Heejung

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Aims There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. Methods Adult participants (N = 9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009–12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. Results Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC = 0.77 for ADA and 0.73–0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72–0.74 and 0.70–0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. Conclusions Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.

AB - Aims There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. Methods Adult participants (N = 9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009–12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. Results Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC = 0.77 for ADA and 0.73–0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72–0.74 and 0.70–0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. Conclusions Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.

KW - ADA

KW - CDC

KW - Prediabetes

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Risk score

KW - Screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976593915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976593915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.06.022

DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.06.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 27371780

AN - SCOPUS:84976593915

VL - 118

SP - 146

EP - 153

JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

SN - 0168-8227

ER -