Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk

Heejung Bang, Alison M. Edwards, Andrew S. Bomback, Christie M. Ballantyne, David Brillon, Mark A. Callahan, Steven M. Teutsch, Alvin I. Mushlin, Lisa M. Kern

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

123 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed. Objective: To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model). Design: Cross-sectional data. Setting: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation. Participants: U.S. adults aged 20 years or older. Measurements: A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures. Results: Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35% (40%) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79% (72%), specificity of 67% (62%), positive predictive value of 10% (10%), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44% to 100%, specificity of 10% to 73%, positive predictive value of 5% to 8%, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98. Limitation: Data during pregnancy were not available. Conclusion: This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings. Primary Funding Source: Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)775-783
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume151
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nutrition Surveys
Atherosclerosis
Guidelines
Validation Studies
Health
Advisory Committees
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Fasting
Obesity
Logistic Models
Self-Assessment
Exercise
Hypertension
Glucose
Pregnancy
Population
Surveys and Questionnaires
Datasets

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Bang, H., Edwards, A. M., Bomback, A. S., Ballantyne, C. M., Brillon, D., Callahan, M. A., ... Kern, L. M. (2009). Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(11), 775-783. https://doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005

Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk. / Bang, Heejung; Edwards, Alison M.; Bomback, Andrew S.; Ballantyne, Christie M.; Brillon, David; Callahan, Mark A.; Teutsch, Steven M.; Mushlin, Alvin I.; Kern, Lisa M.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 151, No. 11, 01.12.2009, p. 775-783.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bang, H, Edwards, AM, Bomback, AS, Ballantyne, CM, Brillon, D, Callahan, MA, Teutsch, SM, Mushlin, AI & Kern, LM 2009, 'Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, no. 11, pp. 775-783. https://doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005
Bang, Heejung ; Edwards, Alison M. ; Bomback, Andrew S. ; Ballantyne, Christie M. ; Brillon, David ; Callahan, Mark A. ; Teutsch, Steven M. ; Mushlin, Alvin I. ; Kern, Lisa M. / Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 151, No. 11. pp. 775-783.
@article{eecff5c952b54c33a91325e9119e30fb,
title = "Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk",
abstract = "Background: National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed. Objective: To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model). Design: Cross-sectional data. Setting: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation. Participants: U.S. adults aged 20 years or older. Measurements: A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures. Results: Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35{\%} (40{\%}) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79{\%} (72{\%}), specificity of 67{\%} (62{\%}), positive predictive value of 10{\%} (10{\%}), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44{\%} to 100{\%}, specificity of 10{\%} to 73{\%}, positive predictive value of 5{\%} to 8{\%}, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98. Limitation: Data during pregnancy were not available. Conclusion: This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings. Primary Funding Source: Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.",
author = "Heejung Bang and Edwards, {Alison M.} and Bomback, {Andrew S.} and Ballantyne, {Christie M.} and David Brillon and Callahan, {Mark A.} and Teutsch, {Steven M.} and Mushlin, {Alvin I.} and Kern, {Lisa M.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "151",
pages = "775--783",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk

AU - Bang, Heejung

AU - Edwards, Alison M.

AU - Bomback, Andrew S.

AU - Ballantyne, Christie M.

AU - Brillon, David

AU - Callahan, Mark A.

AU - Teutsch, Steven M.

AU - Mushlin, Alvin I.

AU - Kern, Lisa M.

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - Background: National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed. Objective: To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model). Design: Cross-sectional data. Setting: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation. Participants: U.S. adults aged 20 years or older. Measurements: A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures. Results: Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35% (40%) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79% (72%), specificity of 67% (62%), positive predictive value of 10% (10%), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44% to 100%, specificity of 10% to 73%, positive predictive value of 5% to 8%, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98. Limitation: Data during pregnancy were not available. Conclusion: This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings. Primary Funding Source: Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.

AB - Background: National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed. Objective: To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model). Design: Cross-sectional data. Setting: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation. Participants: U.S. adults aged 20 years or older. Measurements: A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures. Results: Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35% (40%) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79% (72%), specificity of 67% (62%), positive predictive value of 10% (10%), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44% to 100%, specificity of 10% to 73%, positive predictive value of 5% to 8%, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98. Limitation: Data during pregnancy were not available. Conclusion: This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings. Primary Funding Source: Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=71749115154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=71749115154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005

DO - 10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 19949143

AN - SCOPUS:71749115154

VL - 151

SP - 775

EP - 783

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 11

ER -